Protesters: not against globilzation, just a certain form of globilization where one country gets
richer while the other gets poorer.
Neo-liberism: GDP for usa and Canada has raised over the past few years. In the united states
its true that total gdp has increased. But who has really benefitted?? Owners of apple, bill gates
etc. Majority of the Americans have gotten worse. Homelessness has increased. The same in
Canada.Yes the total gdp has gone up but has benfitted the 1% of the population, and has not
improved the situation of the common people. It’s good to rely on data, but you have to see
what is behind the data. Because the data doesn’t reflect to reality.
Wouldn’t it be better to proceed through regular channels (voters) instead of protesting the
street? To a certain degree, yes it would be better through the voting booths, but the issue is
that sometimes voting is not enough. In this pereticular case, if you look at the 4 main parties
(cons, liberals, ndp, green) if you look at their platforms, they all have embraced this neoliberism
ideology. No matter who you vote for, they are all supporting neo-liberism policy. If people want
to move away from this, they don’t have much choice during election time.
This is also the case in the USA, Obama was supposed to be the face of change, who was
going to increase welfare rates and care about the poor people. None of this has happened, and
he follows the same elements of neoliberism as bush. Obama won at the end of the day
because he had 3 times as many donations from corporations. He was able to get elected due
to financial support from the corporations he was supposed to be fighting against.
Mike Harris was the most responsible for turning Ontario into neoliberism. It’s not that municipal
mayors were completely innocent though. Here in Toronto we had mel lassmen? Who was
doing the same
David Miller was the next mayor, and he presented himself as a left wing candidate, and we
automatically assumed he was against neoliberism. He was certainly more left wing than
melassmen, but he continued a “softer” form of neoliberism. But one of the effects of this
continuation, was the continuous emphasis on on the upper class, which caused more
gentrification, which caused the poorer to get poorer in downtown Toronto.
Miller is out Ford is in. Not looking at Ford actions after he became mayor, but look at his
speeches and promises he made in order to get their vote. Voting results for the 2010 election
show the neighbourhoods outside the downtown core (smitherman) all voted for Ford. Similar to
Miller and Tory election results. In this case Miller had the downtown core, and the outside
suburbs had John Tory, 2003.
Ford’s Agenda: Video: he said that in the years before he came to power, the gravy train was
happening, politicians before him had just wasted tax payers money. And Ford was helping you
to recover your money. The only issue he talked about was money, nothing about developing Toronto or inclusivity or anything, just money. “the party with taxpayers money is over” If you
look a the data in the budget at city hall, you see that the Miller administration had actually
gained a surplus. Most people don’t bother/don’t know how/no time to read the city hall 50 page
report about the financial situation. And many people actually believed this, and our money up to
this point had been completely wasted up to that point.
“it comes down to, people come up to me and say ‘I trust you with my money’” This argument
stems from him being a business and being able to manage money better than the public
sector. The private sector more efficient than the public sector. Most people’s understanding that
the public government is something inneficient, and the private sector is celebrated as
something extremely efficient.
“homeless people won’t be laying on the sidewalks when im elected mayor” As a mayor you
need to represent all people in Toronto, no matter what your personal opinions are.
“lets talk about money, that’s what everything revolves around-money” Is it really all about the
money? The city is not a business. What happens to those who:
1. Don’t have money to spend (there are many of us who are prevented from spending
because they just don’t have enough money, are you still representing these people?)
2. What happens to those who do not pay taxes? All speeches only once he refers to you
as citizens, all the other time he refers to you as Tax-payers. Are you concerned about
people who don’t pay taxes? Not everyone in the city owns a house and not property tax
payers, what happens to us? Children do not pay taxes, and yet I expect my mayor to
want the best for the children in this city-build schools, childcare, kindergartens. Does
this mean he is excluding these people? Refer as a “resident” of this city, not a taxpayer,
because I have a right to be represented whether or not I pay taxes, am rich or poor,
white or black.
When we use the term “citizen” and “taxpayer”, citizen refers to anyone that has been given
citizenship in a community, and irrespective or income-race-religion-etc. and inclusive term.
Taxpayer is a discriminatory term. If you pay taxes you are important, if you don’t I don’t
represent you. You have to realize that people are left out through this wording
Toronto’s Inner Suburbs: