(Maybe) Ford Has a Better Idea?

Does Ontario premier Doug Ford offer a path out of our current instability?

Doug Ford in Sudbury, Ontario, Oct 2024. Credit: Sudbury News

Late last week, the premier of the Canadian province of Ontario, Doug Ford, decided to call an early-election. The next election in the province doesn’t need to be held until June 2026, but Ford argued that the conditions created by the return of Donald Trump to the White House and his threats of wholesale tariffs on Canadian goods requires not only a new plan – something he has been formulating with the prime minister and other premiers (sans Alberta’s Danielle Smith) – but a new public mandate. This despite Ford’s Progressive Conservative Party holding a commanding majority in the Legislative Assembly.

Ford’s idea is two-fold – that a government doesn’t have the right to produce public policy it didn’t campaign on, and secondly the changes to public policy required to counteract Trump’s actions are so immense that it requires public approval in the form of an election. This kind of commitment to the ideals of public representation is worthy of recognition and respect.

Of course, there may also be something of a cynical move here. Ford has created an election where he is running against Donald Trump without Trump being on the ballot. The opposition parties are effectively irrelevant in this equation – unable to position themselves in opposition to Ford’s plans for fear of being deemed “pro-Trump” (something that would be deeply unpopular with the core supporters of both the NDP and Liberals). It’s a canny move.

However, let’s take Ford’s argument for a new election on face value, as Ford is an interesting stylist as a politician who requires contemplation. To those who don’t pay much attention to Canada, Ford may best be known as the brother of Toronto’s former crack-smoking mayor, Rob Ford. While Doug Ford may not be interesting in the way being a crack-smoking mayor is interesting, he has a populist approach to politics that marks him as distinct. Particularly in an age where conventional politicians are finding it incredibly difficult to gain the trust of the public.

While Trump connects – somehow – with voters on the spirit level, you'd never find him around the kitchen table with anyone from the general public empathising with their problems. Ford, however, is a retail politician in the very literal sense. When he became premier of Ontario – having jumped into the role straight from the Toronto city council – he had to be convinced that he couldn’t hand out his personal number to the public, or simply turn up at people’s houses to discuss an issue they wrote to the government about. The role was deemed bigger than that – or so political functionaries around the government of Ontario would have him believe.

To Ford, politics is about customer service. You pay your taxes and you rightfully expect to get government services that meet your expectations - to make life easier in small but measurable ways. Alongside this, you also expect to have politicians who are both accessible and approachable. Although it would be unlikely that Ford would theorise about democratic decay, on an intuitive level he understands that accessibility and demonstrating genuine, one-on-one, care to the public is essential to maintain trust in government and democracy.

This is not to say that Ford is a perfect politician. This observation is not about policy. There are probably plenty of issues where he has made decisions that have not been advantageous to a variety of people in Ontario. But he represents an ethos of governing that I think needs to be reclaimed. That as a politician you are literally a public servant, you are not above the society you govern, and you need to be on the street, hand out-stretched, eyeball to eyeball with your constituents. You need to be human, and have the social skills to engage with people of all backgrounds. Not just the political class.¹

It also helps that Ford is fairly non-ideological. He’s a member of the Progressive Conservative Party mostly because it would be the only party that would have him. Both the Liberals and New Democrats in Ontario are parties that would not only see holding the “correct” opinions as a prerequisite to holding office, but also see comporting oneself in a certain style as essential.

Ford doesn’t have the eloquence of a university graduate – he dropped out of vocational college after two months – and can oftentimes seem a bit simple to those who see polish as a marker of intelligence. He’s the kind of person that labour parties in Australia and the United Kingdom deemed no longer fit for office over the past few decades. Much to their detriment.

Which is not to romanticise a certain kind of “authentic” politician whose instincts are more attuned to the broader public than the over-educated class. But it is a recognition that as progressive politics has morphed into an educated middle and upper class concern there has been a clear subsequent disconnect from the broader public. Which has allowed various forms of populist politics to gain traction. By comparison, Ford comes across as an everyday guy empathetic about people’s kitchen table concerns.

This marks Ford’s populism as highly distinct from Trump’s. Trump is a man only capable of understanding the world through his own wants. He didn’t get into politics to improve service delivery. He has somehow managed to convince 77 million people that the role of the U.S government is to advance his personal interests, but this public connection feels cultish and submissive, not genuine or principled. Trump doesn’t think about customer satisfaction, only his own.

Which probably why out of all the federal cabinet ministers and provincial premiers, Ford has been the most forthright and firm about standing up to Trump. He finds Trump’s threat to businesses and jobs in Ontario (extending to Canada) an affront to the sense of the dignity he believes that hard-working people deserve.

Ford has effectively become the frontman of the collective federal-provincial plan to impose retaliatory measures on the U.S should Trump go through with his tariffs on Canadian goods, and continue to claim that the U.S should annex Canada. Ford told Politico this last week – “If someone throws a punch at me, I’m going to hit him back twice as hard.” Knowing that although Trump expects submission, he doesn’t respect it.

Doug Ford speaking to journalists in Ottawa, Jan 2025. Credit: Radio-Canada

This may be a clever tactic by Canada. Knowing that prime minister Justin Trudeau doesn’t carry any weight within conservative circles it is counter-productive to have him be the face of Canadian resistance. Ford can stand up to Trump and never be accused of being an ivory towered progressive elite with Trump derangement syndrome. Everything is Nixon to China these days if you want something done. Ford also looks like he actually cares – something Trudeau struggles with.

Here Ford also presents a model for the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Pierre Poilievre, the man most likely to be prime minister when a federal election in held in the coming months.² Poilievre can either follow the cowardice of Alberta’s Danielle Smith who fears the Trumpist psychology in and around her United Conservative Party and has therefore opted out of the federal-provincial plan to counter Trump’s tariffs. Or Poilievre can follow Ford and demonstrate that genuinely standing up for Canada is what is expected of Canadian political leaders.

Poilievre found his way to the leadership of the Conservative Party by mimicking Trump’s “set fire to everything” style of politics. But being an opposition leader and being a prime minister are two highly distinct roles. Especially for a middle power in the most dangerous period of of global affairs since the 1930s. Responsibility is paramount.

It may seem odd to look towards provincial politics in Canada for solutions to alleviate this global danger. But part of the West’s current internal problems – that have provided such fertile soil for Trump and opportunities for Russia and China – have come from a political class lacking in authenticity and connection to the broader public. Of governments that have strayed from a focus on the essentials – of providing tangible results from government services, and systems of governance that are easily navigable. This drift of focus creates resentments that spiral up from local to sub-national to national to international politics.

Ford offers an approach to governance rooted in pragmatism and practicality. In this, we can see that the defence of liberal democracy may not need to come from complex new theories or grand pronouncements of principles. That it instead can come from the reshaping of attitudes and social skills of the political class. While “the taxpayer is always right” may not be feasible, an approach to governance that prioritises the dignity of each individual, and in particular the dignity of work, can forge a more trusting – less cynical – relationship between politicians and the public.³ Which is the bedrock of social and global stability.

1. My own theory of both engaging with the society you live in and being seen as a genuine person is to always catch public transport. If you’re a current or aspirating politician sell your car, never catch a taxi or uber, get on the train and bus and understand where you live.

2. The Liberal Party has got a bit of a polling bump from Trudeau’s resignation. But even with – eventually – a new leader victory seems unlikely.

3. Progressive politics is currently missing this sense of individual dignity as it is focused on favoured groups instead. The simplistic oppressor/oppressed binary clouds its judgement and creates a backlash that ends up detrimental to these favoured groups.