The Ontario Election: A Scramble for the Growing Working Class as the Middle Class Declines

47 posts / 0 new
Last post
jerrym
The Ontario Election: A Scramble for the Growing Working Class as the Middle Class Declines

Tom Parkins discusses how the decline of the middle class under the provincial Liberal governments, as well as the  federal Conservative and Liberal governments, is impacting the Ontario election. However, so far the main beneficiary has been Doug Ford.

An expanding working class may have dealt the final blow to the Kathleen Wynne Liberals, whose support has now become concentrated among upper class Ontarians and a shrinking middle class.

For now, Doug Ford’s PCs hold a strong hand with working class voters—nearly double the support of either the Liberals or NDP. If Ford can sustain his working class support until June 7, he will sweep to a majority government. So far, the lone card back is NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, who needs to make an impact with working class voters if she is to block a Ford majority. ...

EKOS’ most recent results show the Wynne Liberals lead only among upper class Ontarians. Support drops by half with working class voters then by a third among poor voters. Liberals may not know it—and probably don’t understand why— but they are the party of class privilege. ...

Over the past 15 years, while the Liberals were in power, middle class membership fell dramatically, according to EKOS research. In 2002, 67 per cent of Canadians considered themselves middle class. Even in 2010, it was holding on at 60 per cent. But by 2013—in just three years—only 48 per cent of Canadians called themselves middle class, a level that has stayed roughly the same since. And as the middle class shrunk, working class membership grew from 23 per cent to 31 per cent of Canadians. Poor Canadians grew from 5 per cent to 12 per cent. The number of poor and working class voters is now almost as large as the middle class. ...

So, as companies have moved toward contract employment with no benefits or pensions—and certainly no unions—millions have fallen out of the middle class. Or perhaps even out of the working class. And at the same time, there’s been as massive run-up in the cost of rents, housing, child care, car insurance, electricity and tuition—costs the Liberals either ignored or caused. Those higher costs might be manageable for more affluent voters who own stocks and real estate, which have also boomed over the past decade. But for those without wealth to fall back on, the solution has been debt. Ultra-low interest rates have filled the gap between stagnant wages and rising costs. Canadians now hold over $2 trillion in personal debts on credit cards, car loans, tuition loans and mortgages. ...

And so for this Ontario election, a central issue (if we can move past incantations about how terrible the Wynne Liberals were) will likely be the affordability of everyday life for working class people. And on that issue we might be about to see an epic right-left battle. On one hand, Doug Ford will offer his vision of small government, low taxes and free markets uber alles. The talking heads on pundit shows will be practically snapping their necks in nodding agreement about how tax cuts for themselves will trickle down to others. But mostly, Ford will offer distraction. He complains about elites and fat cats, although he comes from inherited wealth. ...

What Ford is unlikely to offer are ways to reduce everyday costs. He definitely won’t explain who will pay for his promises. He won’t say whose services he will cut and privatize.

Horwath’s answer is to build new models of security to replace the ones once supplied through a job and union benefits. In an economy in which fewer workers have benefits, the NDP leader is pitching new dental and drug plans. Because now workers have little bargaining power, she supports minimum wage increases and better leave provisions. Horwath is also likely to put forward a child care plan that will save parents thousands of dollars. She has a tuition grant plan to tackle student debt. She’s promised rent control. It is a classic social democratic pitch. ...

And, as the working class dynamics become clear, middle and upper class Liberals may yet decide to come to the table. But the dice might be loaded. It’s easy to figure out the value of a tax cut today. But it’s hard to know what social stability is worth until it’s gone.

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/ontarios-election-is-about-to-be-a-scramb...

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

China has a stated economic goal of raising wages. None of the political morons in Canada want to touch that concept with a barge pole. A pox on all their houses. 

It is not just a question not being "middle class". 30% of Canadian income earners are on $20,000 or less, which by definition makes them poor as shit.

I will post this over and over again until you read it and take it to heart. Doug Ford and Donald Trump win because of exactly this: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil105a-eng...

Why are poor people voting for these guys? Because the state monopoly capitalists of the Liberal and NDP persuasion don't give a fuck about them, and never did.

We have always known Liberals are richer than Conservatives. "I have known Conservative fatcats and Liberal fatcats, but there is no bigger fatcat than a Liberal fatcat". Said in the 1960s.

If the truth were to be known, the social democrat or NDP type is the last bastion for capitalism. You think poor people and working people on shit wages like me don't know that? Oh you are a "socialist". State monopoly capitalist. I've appropriated your big red fist, and it is going where the sun doesn't shine.

Unless workers own the businesses they work for, we will always be fucked.

CuriousAboutEve...

The best way to increase quality of life is to eliminate mercury amalgam dentistry, mercury-aluminum vaccinations and eliminate “never do prevention or cure medicine and always do pharma treat allopathic deathcare”

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I read that three times to try to make it make sense, and now I have autism.  FML.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

In some things, the precautionary principle works, and in others, the trial-and-error principle works. Don't you think in medicine we should try both?

I do however think that injecting and implanting toxic materials in a human body is not necessarily a good idea.

lagatta4

I was wondering why you were appropriating the socialist and labour fist for such rightwing shit. Poor people aren't necessarily reactionary; I've been involved in a tenants' association for decades and there are many low-income workers and people on benefits who aren't Fordist or otherwise anti-environmental.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The Liberals and NDP may not give a fuck about the working/middle class. But the Conservatives don't either. And children of privilege such as Ford and Trump DEFINITELY don't give a fuck about them.

In the US,Mr.Populism is planning on fucking his base hard and deep with a welfare reform like no other government has had the balls to do. Not to mention the $1.5 Trillion the Repugs have already gutted from the social safety net to enrich the uber rich. My guess is Ford will do the same. To make a long story short,working class,the poor,even middle class who are voting for these faux populists are idiots. Because in the end,they are going to fuck them harder than the Libs,traditional Cons and NDP ewould dream of doing.

As I said. Suckers,the whole lot of them.

Webgear

 Isn't the middle class and working class the same? 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Webgear wrote:

 Isn't the middle class and working class the same? 

Whatever. I read it as 2 things. my bad. But it doesn't change what I had to say about them...including Ontario's poor.

Webgear

alan smithee wrote:

Webgear wrote:

 Isn't the middle class and working class the same? 

Whatever. I read it as 2 things. my bad. But it doesn't change what I had to say about them...including Ontario's poor.

Honest question. I wasn't sure if they were the same or not. I thought they were the same. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Oh, that's a good one. A proletarian advocating workers' ownership is posting right wing reactionary shit. Now I have appropriated a red fist, I can do with it what I want. It is just a tool to get workers' control. It has nothing to do with "socialism" where intellectuals decide how we should live our lives through their "ideologies", right-wing, or left-wing. None of them talk about practicalities to make this happen, because they are too invested in the status quo. Supply and demand is real, and it affects workers more than anyone. If we are to get out of this vile existence, we have to understand it very well. And that means throwing idealistic ideas out the window, as they mean nothing to today's problems. Come up with some ideas to raise our wages, and we will be all ears.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

The heirarchy is master, slavemaster, slave, and things the slave is the master over. The slave has to bring things to the master, and in that process realizes he or she is the slavemaster over those things. The slavemaster knows that although he or she is the slave of the master, he or she is the master of the slaves.

This is the development of consciousness, because it constantly has to deal with this fundamental contradiction of slavery. It learns things and solves problems quickly.

Latin: Servo, I am aware/wary. Servio, I exist in the state of slavery. It is right in the language. So beware, or the slavers will catch you.

As one might also conclude by reading Hegel.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I don't care how he campaigns,Ford will be proven to be Mike Harris 2.0. We've seen this faux populism before and very recently.

Trump campaigned the same way making promises of protecting the middle class and his dirt poor base. He wasn't going to touch medicare,medicaid,social security etc... He promised to 'drain the swamp'  and show his tax returns, All LIES. He promised too be non=interventionist. Another LIE.

He spent the campaign attacking Clinton for being in the pocket of Wall Street and Goldman Sachs.

Once elected,Trump expanded the swamp with Goldman Sachs and billion doollar donors making up his cabinet. He gutted $1.5 Trillion (with a T) from the social safety net. He promised to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something ' really terrific'  Instead he replaced it with something really terrible.

He is now going after welfare. Punishing his Southern redneck welfare base.

Doug Ford is going to do all of this all the same. And the working class and poor who are buying into his faux populism are going to find themselves with sore roughly penetrated assholes. He's going to fuck them all over. And anyone with their eyes open can see this coming.

People like Ford and Trump don't understand the working class or poor or they have nothing but contempt for them. One or the other or both. 

These carnival barkers are seasoned con artists that are masters of the 'there's one born every minute' philosophy.

Get ready for a hard anal rape,Ontario. And you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves. Suckers. 

lagatta4

Since when am I against workers' ownership? I've advocated it for decades. That is not what I meant by rightwing shit, and you know it.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

lagatta4 wrote:

Since when am I against workers' ownership? I've advocated it for decades. That is not what I meant by rightwing shit, and you know it.


​ 

Are you referring to something I said,lagatta? Because I've been here long enough to know where you stand.

lagatta4

Absolutely not, alan. I was referring to the red fist guy.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

alan smithee wrote:

I don't care how he campaigns,Ford will be proven to be Mike Harris 2.0. We've seen this faux populism before and very recently.

Trump campaigned the same way making promises of protecting the middle class and his dirt poor base. He wasn't going to touch medicare,medicaid,social security etc... He promised to 'drain the swamp'  and show his tax returns, All LIES. He promised too be non=interventionist. Another LIE.

He spent the campaign attacking Clinton for being in the pocket of Wall Street and Goldman Sachs.

Once elected,Trump expanded the swamp with Goldman Sachs and billion doollar donors making up his cabinet. He gutted $1.5 Trillion (with a T) from the social safety net. He promised to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something ' really terrific'  Instead he replaced it with something really terrible.

He is now going after welfare. Punishing his Southern redneck welfare base.

Doug Ford is going to do all of this all the same. And the working class and poor who are buying into his faux populism are going to find themselves with sore roughly penetrated assholes. He's going to fuck them all over. And anyone with their eyes open can see this coming.

People like Ford and Trump don't understand the working class or poor or they have nothing but contempt for them. One or the other or both. 

These carnival barkers are seasoned con artists that are masters of the 'there's one born every minute' philosophy.

Get ready for a hard anal rape,Ontario. And you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves. Suckers. 

So Alan does it shock you that (according to Now Magazine)

NDP in Ontario is bleeding votes to the PCs, instead of the other way around. A poll released this week by Angus Reid shows the PCs ahead of the Dippers among voters who identify as working class. 

https://nowtoronto.com/news/doug-ford-ontario-election/

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I don't care how he campaigns,Ford will be proven to be Mike Harris 2.0. We've seen this faux populism before and very recently.

Trump campaigned the same way making promises of protecting the middle class and his dirt poor base. He wasn't going to touch medicare,medicaid,social security etc... He promised to 'drain the swamp'  and show his tax returns, All LIES. He promised too be non=interventionist. Another LIE.

He spent the campaign attacking Clinton for being in the pocket of Wall Street and Goldman Sachs.

Once elected,Trump expanded the swamp with Goldman Sachs and billion doollar donors making up his cabinet. He gutted $1.5 Trillion (with a T) from the social safety net. He promised to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something ' really terrific'  Instead he replaced it with something really terrible.

He is now going after welfare. Punishing his Southern redneck welfare base.

Doug Ford is going to do all of this all the same. And the working class and poor who are buying into his faux populism are going to find themselves with sore roughly penetrated assholes. He's going to fuck them all over. And anyone with their eyes open can see this coming.

People like Ford and Trump don't understand the working class or poor or they have nothing but contempt for them. One or the other or both. 

These carnival barkers are seasoned con artists that are masters of the 'there's one born every minute' philosophy.

Get ready for a hard anal rape,Ontario. And you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves. Suckers. 

So Alan does it shock you that (according to Now Magazine)

NDP in Ontario is bleeding votes to the PCs, instead of the other way around. A poll released this week by Angus Reid shows the PCs ahead of the Dippers among voters who identify as working class. 

https://nowtoronto.com/news/doug-ford-ontario-election/

Uh...that's precisely the point. That's why I am calling them idiots. Find the thread from the 2016 US presidential race. I said over and over that Trump's populist talk was nothing but rhetoric. That a Republican is a Republican is a Republican. I said again and again that once elected,Trump woould fall lock step in line with Republican policy and ideology.

I was dead on correct. I called it. I was 100% on the money.

Now I'm saying the exact same thing about Ford. His populism is fake. A Conservative is a Conservative is a Conservative. Any populist talk is complete rhetoric. He'll fall right into line with party policy and ideology once elected.

This is why Ontario voters, ESPECIALLY traditional NDP voters, falling for this faux populism and rhetoric are idiots. Indisputable idiots.

Ford is going to fuck them all in the ass. And anyone with their eyes wide open can see this coming a hundred miles away.

It dooesn't matter what Ford says. It's rhetoric. It's faux populism. And I hope Ontarians are prepared to relive the Harris years.

New Democrats falling for this fraud are the biggest idiots of the bunch. They should know better.

You may love Doug Ford (which seems to be obvious as how you are so excited with the fact that New emocrats are jumping on the in flames Zeppelin which is the Ford campaign) You may be enjoying this. Ontarians,particularly so-called New Democrats,are going to get fucked really hard. They are all suckers. They are all deluded and they are all dumber than dirt.

THAT is what I'm saying. I don't give a fuck if the PC's are bleeding NDP votes. It just goes to prove the idiocy  of New Democrats. And the gullibility of non-Conservative Ontarians in general.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

alan smithee wrote:

Uh...that's precisely the point. That's why I am calling them idiots. Find the thread from the 2016 US presidential race. I said over and over that Trump's populist talk was nothing but rhetoric. That a Republican is a Republican is a Republican. I said again and again that once elected,Trump woould fall lock step in line with Republican policy and ideology.

I was dead on correct. I called it. I was 100% on the money.

Now I'm saying the exact same thing about Ford. His populism is fake. A Conservative is a Conservative is a Conservative. Any populist talk is complete rhetoric. He'll fall right into line with party policy and ideology once elected.

This is why Ontario voters, ESPECIALLY traditional NDP voters, falling for this faux populism and rhetoric are idiots. Indisputable idiots.

Ford is going to fuck them all in the ass. And anyone with their eyes wide open can see this coming a hundred miles away.

It dooesn't matter what Ford says. It's rhetoric. It's faux populism. And I hope Ontarians are prepared to relive the Harris years.

New Democrats falling for this fraud are the biggest idiots of the bunch. They should know better.

You may love Doug Ford (which seems to be obvious as how you are so excited with the fact that New emocrats are jumping on the in flames Zeppelin which is the Ford campaign) You may be enjoying this. Ontarians,particularly so-called New Democrats,are going to get fucked really hard. They are all suckers. They are all deluded and they are all dumber than dirt.

THAT is what I'm saying. I don't give a fuck if the PC's are bleeding NDP votes. It just goes to prove the idiocy  of New Democrats. And the gullibility of non-Conservative Ontarians in general.

Very well said Alan.

jerrym

Mighty Middle wrote:

NDP in Ontario is bleeding votes to the PCs, instead of the other way around. A poll released this week by Angus Reid shows the PCs ahead of the Dippers among voters who identify as working class. 

https://nowtoronto.com/news/doug-ford-ontario-election/

You're repeating what you have already said. So here is the counterarguement once again. 

There is good news here for the NDP. These voters aren't even considering voting Liberal. Immediately before your quote is the following:

It’s been a truism of Ontario politics – albeit a lesser known one – that in some ridings voters who support the PCs are just as likely to vote NDP, which has led some political observers to draw comparisons to Alberta when assessing the NDP’s chances. 

During Alberta’s last provincial election, the appetite for change was just as pronounced as it is now in Ontario, and Wild Rose supporters voted in droves for the NDP, toppling the PC majority that ruled the province for more than 40 years.

https://nowtoronto.com/news/doug-ford-ontario-election/

In Alberta, the PCs had an enormous lead before the election but when Notley far outperformed Prentice in the debates, voters shifted to the NDP, ignoring your beloved Liberals on the way. This type of Ontario voter may vote for Ford, but if he falters and/or Horwath performs well, especially in the debates, they are likely to shift towards the NDP without even considering the Liberals, as is the typical situation on the Prairies. 

jerrym

Despite Mighty Middle's efforts to suggest the NDP are losing support, it is the Liberals who are in losing aupport and have the smaller potential voting  base compared to the last election and need to win 85% of those who might consider voting for them, a tough task:

We found that 44% would at least consider voting for the Ontario Liberals, 58% would consider voting for the NDP, and 59% would consider the PCs. 

http://onpulse.ca/blog/the-42nd-ontario-general-election-its-anyones-game

 

This is hardly surprising as the typical Liberal voter is more likely to be among the economically privileged, a class that continues to shrink in numbers.

EKOS’ most recent results show the Wynne Liberals lead only among upper class Ontarians. Support drops by half with working class voters then by a third among poor voters. Liberals may not know it—and probably don’t understand why— but they are the party of class privilege. And in this economy, that’s a shrinking electoral segment.

Over the past 15 years, while the Liberals were in power, middle class membership fell dramatically, according to EKOS research. In 2002, 67 per cent of Canadians considered themselves middle class. Even in 2010, it was holding on at 60 per cent. But by 2013—in just three years—only 48 per cent of Canadians called themselves middle class, a level that has stayed roughly the same since. And as the middle class shrunk, working class membership grew from 23 per cent to 31 per cent of Canadians. Poor Canadians grew from 5 per cent to 12 per cent.

The number of poor and working class voters is now almost as large as the middle class. EKOS Research CEO Frank Graves believes the class profile of Ontario closely resembles the national results.

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/ontarios-election-is-about-to-be-a-scramb...

 

As the latest poll shows, it is Liberal voters that are shifting to the PCs, and while the Liberals are still ahead of the NDP, thier potential voting base is smaller thant that of the NDP, with 41% of voters saying they will NEVER vote Liberal again.

A PC victory is not inevitable, said Lyle, but the chances of a Liberal win are looking rather slim. ...

But a stumbling block for Wynne's party is the size of the pool of voters who identify closely with the NDP or Liberals.  At a similar stage before the 2014 election, 31 per cent of those polled said they personally identify as a Liberal, 21 per cent said a Progressive Conservative and 11 per cent said New Democrat. The new polling says 31 per cent of voters identify as PC, 27 per cent as Liberal and 12 per cent NDP.  ...

Lyle describes that shift toward the PCs as dramatic. "They're growing both from taking votes from the Liberals and from pulling voters in who were previously uncommitted or undecided," he said.

The research suggests Ford and the PCs are gaining much of their support from people who feel they are struggling economically. "He voices their anger, he voices their frustration." said Lyle.  ...

The polling suggests there could be some room for fostering anti-Ford sentiment.

  • 52 per cent of those polled agreed with the statement, "Doug Ford has a history of poor choices and bad behaviour that make him unsuitable to be premier."
  • 48 per cent agreed with the statement "Doug Ford scares me."  
  • 42 per cent agreed with "I am afraid of what Doug Ford and the PCs might do if they form government"

The Liberals and NDP will want to try to capitalize on that fear and drive it higher. "The history says scaring people about Tory cuts works," said Lyle. "The question is, will it stick?"

Compared with a similar time ahead of the last election in 2014, several measures do not look good for the Liberals. The number of people willing to consider voting for the Liberals is down 19 percentage points. The pool of people who agree with the statement "I am so angry at the provincial Liberals, I will never vote for them again"  is up six percentage points, to 41 per cent.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-election-poll-innovative-r...

 

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

jerrym wrote:

Despite Mighty Middle's efforts to suggest the NDP are losing support, it is the Liberals who are in losing aupport and have the smaller potential voting  base compared to the last election and need to win 85% of those who might consider voting for them, a tough task:

Both are losing support to Ford. I think he is unstoppable at this point and don't see a way for either the Liberals or the NDP to win.

But you still didn't address my original point that Ford is taking NDP votes away from Andrea Horwath. That you seem to be in denial about.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Doug Ford attracting 'economically unhappy' voters with message that government is the problem, says pollster Greg Lyle

Ford is tapping into "a sense of anger that governments are governing in the interest of special interests and not in the interest of real folks," said the polling firm's owner Greg Lyle, in an interview with CBC News. 

Lyle describes that shift toward the PCs as dramatic. "They're growing both from taking votes from the Liberals and from pulling voters in who were previously uncommitted or undecided," he said.

The research suggests Ford and the PCs are gaining much of their support from people who feel they are struggling economically.

"He voices their anger, he voices their frustration." said Lyle. 

Ford is appealing to "people that believe you can be anything you want, but are having a very hard time getting by. They believe in the promise of the Canadian dream, but they think it's being denied to them." He said Ford is telling these voters: "It's government getting between you and your dreams, and I'm going to stop that." 

The promises in last month's budget did not immediately swing many voters into the Liberal camp, according to Lyle's analysis of the polling. "All it did was stop the bleeding among the people they'd got, and maybe opened the door to some New Democrats to come around," he said. "That's not bad for a survival strategy, but that's nowhere near enough to be able to win." 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-election-poll-innovative-r...

I just don't see a path for either the Liberals or the NDP to win.

Pondering

Alan and Mighty Middle, insulting voters is both self-serving and self-defeating. 

Fair warning, this is a right wing propaganda site. 

https://www.magacoalition.com/

The MAGA Coalition is a national network of over 5,000,000 America First citizens who share in the belief that both our national parties have taken America down the wrong path. World class healthcare, a thriving job market, an end to endless wars, and nation building is what we are about. We want our politicians to put American families first and to adhere to our founding traditions and values.

We evaluate current politicians and we seek out and support new candidates who support our values. We provide candidates with volunteers, tools, and exposure they need to successfully compete against globalist corporatists interests. We organize to fill congressional, state, and local political seats with officials that espouse MAGA values. We help remind lawmakers to vote the MAGA Platform or we work to replace them with candidates who will put American families first.

This is stuff the left should own. Where is the NDP condemnation of current trade deals? What about the sad state of our health care system and education system? 

The left focuses on left and right and arguing from the perspective of ideology and party politics and identity politics and morality while the populist right zeros in on the desires and frustrations of the 99%. 

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Pondering wrote:

Alan and Mighty Middle, insulting voters is both self-serving and self-defeating.

Where am I insulting voters? I'm just saying I don't see any path to victory for either the NDP or Liberals.

jerrym

Mighty Middle wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Alan and Mighty Middle, insulting voters is both self-serving and self-defeating.

Where am I insulting voters? I'm just saying I don't see any path to victory for either the NDP or Liberals.

Here are the quotes

alan smithee wrote: (post #18)

This is why Ontario voters, ESPECIALLY traditional NDP voters, falling for this faux populism and rhetoric are idiots. Indisputable idiots.

You wrote in post #19 after copying Alan's  entire post #18 after quoting Alan

Mighty Middle wrote:

Very well said Alan.

 

Dissing any type of voter will guarantee they won't be voting for your candidate. Ask Hilary Clinton about that. Her comments "Deplorables" and "“We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” helped produce her largest state margin loss to Trump - 42.2%.

After Trump won the election, Bernie Sanders went to a town hall in West Virginia,  where a show of hands showed most in the audience had voted for Trump. He discussed in a respectful manner why their coal industry jobs were not likely to return and why Trump's other promises were highly unlikely or never going to be filled. He ended up getting repeated rounds of applause. 

Voters who shift from one party to another often go through a phase where they are not tied to the shift and are willing to be convinced otherwise if good evidence is presented to them. 

When you insult people, you've lost them before you say another word. The Conservatives "barbaric cultural practices" comment strongly reduced their visible minority vote after years of having cultivated these voters and having some success in doing so. 

This approach also smacks of desperation, arising out of the realization that one's message is not getting across and blaming the voter rather than the message or your previous actions for the negative response you are getting. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

jerrym wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Alan and Mighty Middle, insulting voters is both self-serving and self-defeating.

Where am I insulting voters? I'm just saying I don't see any path to victory for either the NDP or Liberals.

Here are the quotes

alan smithee wrote: (post #18)

This is why Ontario voters, ESPECIALLY traditional NDP voters, falling for this faux populism and rhetoric are idiots. Indisputable idiots.

You wrote in post #19 after copying Alan's  entire post #18 after quoting Alan

Mighty Middle wrote:

Very well said Alan.

 

Dissing any type of voter will guarantee they won't be voting for your candidate. Ask Hilary Clinton about that. Her comments "Deplorables" and "“We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” helped produce her largest state margin loss to Trump - 42.2%.

After Trump won the election, Bernie Sanders went to a town hall in West Virginia,  where a show of hands showed most in the audience had voted for Trump. He discussed in a respectful manner why their coal industry jobs were not likely to return and why Trump's other promises were highly unlikely or never going to be filled. He ended up getting repeated rounds of applause. 

Voters who shift from one party to another often go through a phase where they are not tied to the shift and are willing to be convinced otherwise if good evidence is presented to them. 

When you insult people, you've lost them before you say another word. The Conservatives "barbaric cultural practices" comment strongly reduced their visible minority vote after years of having cultivated these voters and having some success in doing so. 

This approach also smacks of desperation, arising out of the realization that one's message is not getting across and blaming the voter rather than the message or your previous actions for the negative response you are getting. 

 

 

Of course I was insulting voters. If you are a New Democrat or even someone who doesn't normally vote Conservative and you think Doug Ford is the answer to your problems,you're beyond daft.

As I said to MM. Check out the 2016 Presidential race thread from a year and a half ago. I repeated myself over and over again that Trump's populist rhetoric was just that -- rhetoric. I accurately predicted that once elected he'd fall right into line with Republican policy and ideology. It was people who voted for Obama in the last 2 elections that elected Donald Trump. They fell for his con.

I predict the same result with Ford. As a New Democrat,you'd have to be a stone cold idiot to support Doug Ford and the PC's. He's not going to help you. He's going to fuck you. And New Democrats should know better.

There's no way to sugar coat it. That's the harsh reality.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

jerrym wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Very well said Alan.

and it would be a reach for you to say I'm insulting voters by complimenting someone else post!

Pondering

jerrym wrote:
 Dissing any type of voter will guarantee they won't be voting for your candidate. Ask Hilary Clinton about that. Her comments "Deplorables" and "“We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” helped produce her largest state margin loss to Trump - 42.2%.

After Trump won the election, Bernie Sanders went to a town hall in West Virginia,  where a show of hands showed most in the audience had voted for Trump. He discussed in a respectful manner why their coal industry jobs were not likely to return and why Trump's other promises were highly unlikely or never going to be filled. He ended up getting repeated rounds of applause. 

Voters who shift from one party to another often go through a phase where they are not tied to the shift and are willing to be convinced otherwise if good evidence is presented to them. 

When you insult people, you've lost them before you say another word. The Conservatives "barbaric cultural practices" comment strongly reduced their visible minority vote after years of having cultivated these voters and having some success in doing so. 

This approach also smacks of desperation, arising out of the realization that one's message is not getting across and blaming the voter rather than the message or your previous actions for the negative response you are getting. 

Very well said Jerry. It is not the responsibility of the target to be persuaded. It is up to the persuader to present a convincing argument. 

I absolutely believe that "the moderate left" has a much better plan for Canada's future than the neoliberals do. We would be healthier and more prosperous and violence would decrease even more. Our communities would be more beautiful and no one would be homeless. Canada has the potential to be the closest thing to paradise on earth that exists. Canada is inherently wealthy if we manage our resources properly, including people. 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

I have no idea what you are talking about lagatta4. If I do not meet your standards of ideological purity, I don't really care. I hate ideology. Call me any names you like. If you think I was promoting any kind of ideology from something I said, I don't think you read me at all.

Your ideology and all the others are what keeps us in slavery, and gives us unimaginably bad cases of PTSD.

Just another day in Hell.

lagatta4

Vaffanculo stronzo. There are enough macho shits in my life, merci!

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Keep calling me names. It is fuel for my fire.

Cody87

Webgear wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Webgear wrote:

 Isn't the middle class and working class the same? 

Whatever. I read it as 2 things. my bad. But it doesn't change what I had to say about them...including Ontario's poor.

Honest question. I wasn't sure if they were the same or not. I thought they were the same. 

I think "middle class" is aimed at a higher income bracket than "working class." Like "working class" is a 2 income household that makes $35000-$50000 (ie. 2 full time minimum wage earners or equivalent), where "middle class" is 1 or 2 earners in the $20-$30/hr full time range (ie $40000-$60000 income per earner). Roughly speaking. Upper middle class would be 2 earner income in excess of $120000 or so (basically if at least one earner makes more than teacher/nurse salary).

So my dad works as an assistant supervisor for a small grounds crew on a heritage site...I think he makes about $16/hr now after 10 years, starting around $12/hr back in the day. That would be working class.

Whereas if you had a nurse (~$60k) and an account rep at a bank (~$40), they would be middle class.

An easy way to understand the difference at a visceral level, at least as I understand it, is this:

The middle class struggles to pay for their house and cars. The working class struggles to pay for their rent and car.

Another visceral example would be: "What happens if one of you gets sick and misses a week of work?" If the answer is "I have to go to work when I'm sick because I can't afford the lost wages", you're working class, not middle class.

lagatta4

Actually, that refers to income, not class.

Cody87

progressive17 wrote:

Keep calling me names. It is fuel for my fire.

I think "it's" would be edgier than "it is." This isn't English class.

Cody87

lagatta4 wrote:

Actually, that refers to income, not class.

So, do you think there's a difference? And if so, how would you define it?

lagatta4

The "middle class" used to be another name for the petite bourgeoisie. Small business owners and independent professionals such as doctors, lawyers and accountants. Many, but not all of the latter group earn far higher incomes than what you are defining as "middle class" and under our woeful privitisinng healthcare system, some are owners of actual "super-clinics", which is very far from a traditional medical practice.

It is actually quite a challenge to look at and grasp how social classes and class dynamics are changing in the 21st-century. But they are never ONLY a matter of income.

An important point to keep in mind is the growing concentration of wealth, where a tiny percentage of ultra-rich and ultra-powerful amass an increasing percentage of the world's wealth in terms of a growing number of poor and very poor workers, peasants and people in precarious situations. The "classless society" is a myth.

 

Cody87

lagatta4 wrote:

It is actually quite a challenge to look at and grasp how social classes and class dynamics are changing in the 21st-century. But they are never ONLY a matter of income.

Okay, I agree with that, which is why I put the following:

The middle class struggles to pay for their house and cars. The working class struggles to pay for their rent and car.

Another visceral example would be: "What happens if one of you gets sick and misses a week of work?" If the answer is "I have to go to work when I'm sick because I can't afford the lost wages", you're working class, not middle class.

This isn't strictly talking of income, because it's not exactly about income. It's about security. But income is strongly correlated with that security - higher income = more security. Would you agree with my examples above?

And I think in common usage these days, nobody is referring to doctors or lawyers when they say "middle class." At worst they would be considered the top of the upper middle class but certainly those are the not types of people being addressed when politicians and pundits are talking about the "middle class".

Webgear

lagatta4 wrote:

The "middle class" used to be another name for the petite bourgeoisie. Small business owners and independent professionals such as doctors, lawyers and accountants. Many, but not all of the latter group earn far higher incomes than what you are defining as "middle class" and under our woeful privitisinng healthcare system, some are owners of actual "super-clinics", which is very far from a traditional medical practice.

It is actually quite a challenge to look at and grasp how social classes and class dynamics are changing in the 21st-century. But they are never ONLY a matter of income.

An important point to keep in mind is the growing concentration of wealth, where a tiny percentage of ultra-rich and ultra-powerful amass an increasing percentage of the world's wealth in terms of a growing number of poor and very poor workers, peasants and people in precarious situations. The "classless society" is a myth.

Can we include education and social status as part class definition?  

Sean in Ottawa

Often people do not consider the words they use but a distinction between middle income, middle class and working class is always a good thing to keep in mind. All three are different and used interchangeably. In many cases they may refer to the same people with diffrent emphasis and borders. What they mean to me:

Middle income has two possible meanings and multiple definition of boundaires. This is why it is better to use more specific terms. It can mean those near the median income, those near the average income, those of a middle income bracket. The middle can mean income from all sources for all people or somethink it can mean working income (wages) among working people, depending on definition but that is a poor definition that does not account for all income. In all cases it is a term defined, with assumptions, by math and statistics.

The other two are more cultural terms.

Working class is a term to define people who offer their labour for their income as opposed to those who derive their income from returns on assets, investmens, rents, capital etc. There is no concept of middle here. Typically there are limits to what you can get for individual labour so they tend not to go to the higher incomes but some do. It is still a cultural meaning so it is not the same as the concept of working people -- those currently selling their labour. Working class include those who have in the past or expect to in the future, or would if they are healthy or depend on those who do. Because it is cultural it is also an identity worn by some with pride and ignored by others. A working class person who makes a high income may still identify as working class. Some working people do not even see themselves as such. People who struggle, even unemployed can be working class and not for a moment consider themseves middle class.

Middle class is a vague term that has even more meanings. It carry's a meaning of some kind of comfort, basic needs covered, luxuries modest but above subsistence. Because it can mean anything, every political party uses it. The NDP when they speak of the middle class it is often evident that they have in mind middle income -- soemthing near the median income perhaps. Boundaries are fuzzy to allow the greatest number of participants. Liberals and Conservatives seem to have a different definition and see middle class at a higher level of comfort and consumption. This is how the Liberals introduced a "middle class tax cut" that started small above the median income and peaked in the lower part of the top 20% of incomes. Thus middle class to Liberals appears to be those who earn between the 70th and 90th percentile of income. These tend to be usually working people, working class but with very, very good jobs. Perhaps Liberals see middle class as the top of the working class below the capital class. But this "middle" has some 3/4 of people mostly falling below it. There are other cultural ideas of middle class inlcuded in a good steady job with good hours, home ownership, the ability to have leisure time, the ability to afford all the trappings of family including the ability to provide for opportunities for the next generation.

As cultural terms middle class might mean ordinary, typical. And those who aspire to that. Working is a self-perception of your relationship to labour, whether you are successful at it or not. As cultural terms these should be largely banned from public policy.

Public policy should focus on statistical terms like income levels and wage levels in my opinion. Politicians like to use the cultural terms so that their meanings are less precise or known and more adaptable.

Others here may have differences of opinion about these terms but I suspect most do see distinctions even if they recognize that there is considerable overlap.

Webgear

Thanks Sean, all interesting points and concepts. 

 

welder welder's picture

Re. the working class voting for someone like Ford and the Conservatives...The problem, as I see it, is that the parties of the so called "Left" have, for a very long time, deliberately steered away from the working class. The "intellectuals" of that type seem to be more interested in middle class and upper middle class issues, playing the identity politics game,and, not properly addressing the economic issues most people face. When faced with no other viable alternative, the working class will turn to a Right wing ideolgue who seems to be speaking about the issues that face them, regardless if that person will actually follow through for them. However, this is a problem for the Left. I just finished a great book by David North called, "The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism, and, the Politics of the Pseudo-Left"...It's worth the read and lends great insight to where the "New Left" has gone wrong AND why it refuses to orient itself to the working class. By the way, I understand where progressive17 is coming from when he speaks to ownership. I believe he's talking about worker co-ops and democratizing the workplace. Richard Wolff talks about this all the time. It's an Anarchist/ Anarcho-Syndicalist idea (out of the Mikhail Bakunin side) that, considering the current state of Capitalism, has some merit...

Sean in Ottawa

welder wrote:

Re. the working class voting for someone like Ford and the Conservatives...The problem, as I see it, is that the parties of the so called "Left" have, for a very long time, deliberately steered away from the working class. The "intellectuals" of that type seem to be more interested in middle class and upper middle class issues, playing the identity politics game,and, not properly addressing the economic issues most people face. When faced with no other viable alternative, the working class will turn to a Right wing ideolgue who seems to be speaking about the issues that face them, regardless if that person will actually follow through for them. However, this is a problem for the Left. I just finished a great book by David North called, "The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism, and, the Politics of the Pseudo-Left"...It's worth the read and lends great insight to where the "New Left" has gone wrong AND why it refuses to orient itself to the working class. By the way, I understand where progressive17 is coming from when he speaks to ownership. I believe he's talking about worker co-ops and democratizing the workplace. Richard Wolff talks about this all the time. It's an Anarchist/ Anarcho-Syndicalist idea (out of the Mikhail Bakunin side) that, considering the current state of Capitalism, has some merit...

The left has always had stronger more reliable support form the intellectual class than the working class.

I disagree that the policies offered by the left are not for the working class as much as anyone. I do think that communications with working people are difficult for many reasons and not all those are the fault of the left parties.

There is also the reality that you can always speak best to those you come from. The political class is not working class and there are reasons for that too.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The left has always had stronger more reliable support form the intellectual class than the working class.

Who does the working class support?

And why?

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The left has always had stronger more reliable support form the intellectual class than the working class.

Who does the working class support?

And why?

It is too diverse to support any single one thing.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It is too diverse to support any single one thing.

OK.

But if they're that diverse, it would similarly make no sense to say "this latest policy is clearly an attack on the working class" and suchlike.  They are large.  They contain multitudes.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

The world is divided into slavery and greed. This method of analysis shreds everything.

The concept of classes is morally wrong, because you can't attach qualities to your arbitrarily defined mass of people. Justice demands we treat each case according to its merits. You can have benign business owners "bourgeoisie" who do not care about exponential profits, and just want a decent life for their families, and indeed workers. You can have evil "proletarians" who rat their coworkers out, and arrive with the goon squad during strikebreaking operations. Then you might have to divide those down into subcategories. "oh those are lumpenproletarians!" "Oh those are fellow travellers!" And then you have to argue where this class starts and this class ends. The main thing is, you keep talking while there are people out there who need you. Exactly what the system wants.

All more bullshit to distract us from the problems of the day. Please stop categorizing and labelling and putting people into boxes. It is good for studying insects and whatnot, but people are much more complex than that, so we are to believe.

Since 1975, my standard of living for work done has dropped by 63%. That is 1.5% linear a year. That is because profits have gone up, and wages have gone down. That has nothing to do with classes and ideology. It is about slavery and greed.

Not being able to take a day off sick is starting to get to the crux of the matter. Let people understand that we know about these things, and quit trying to label them and put them into boxes for our intellectual convenience, to assuage our guilt, and our subconscious greed for fame and political power.

As the old American bumper sticker says, 

If voting could change the system, it would be against the law.

As I am now coasting on my holiday pay and my last week's pay, I suppose I can say I am finally living off the fruits of my toil. Oh. these bills just nuked more of that. And May's rent! Better set aside some for that. Oh well. No bus ride to Toronto. Shucks. And I had an available couch!

Thank you welder for your comments. You seem like an honest hard-working person. A scholar and possibly a labour aristocrat, as we should all be.

I do indeed like the concept of anarcho-syndicalism (another label, I admit). It could be the way we could bring it down from the inside. By the way, if you haven't read Bakunin's God and the State this year, it is time again. The invective is delicious.

There is a new concept of "anti-money" which may be useful in our modern age. I see it could be a method to destroy incentive for greed. The beauty is, anti-money can sit in the Royal Bank, without them knowing a thing. A dollar is just a dollar, whether you buy a couple of cigarettes or drop it in a hat.

As worker-owned businesses, or co-operatives if you like, we have a responsibility to turn a profit, so we can pay taxes, pay our dividends (and those of our pensioners) and re-invest so we can get more workers and technology to be part of us. As it is right now, worker-owned companies compete quite well against those which must deliver exponential profits. For one thing they do not have the layers of management and bureaucracy which can largely be replaced by mathematical modelling and stochastic programming. In modern terms these iterative strategies need hardly any computing power at all. A couple of phones could probably run all the simulations you like, in no time flat.

Then the workers' council makes the decision to go with the best probable outcome, and the mitigation procedures in case of something worse. Who in capitalist management thinks like that? We could bury them!

Any parsimonious Presbyterian business person will tell you that they hate waste, incompetence, corruption, and inefficiency. 

As any Chinese Communist will tell you, capitalism can be used for any particular purpose. It does not have to be employed in the service of greed, if we do not want it to be. Anti-money sounds like a good concept. A good disguise for an old ruse. Every Chinese billionaire knows that one day it could be all gone, at a touch of a button by the State.