ON NOVEMBER 26th an Ontario Superior Court judge ended the short, chaotic reign of Rob Ford (pictured) as mayor of Canada’s largest city, finding him guilty of a conflict of interest and ordering him to leave office within 14 days. Mr Ford blamed it on his opponents: “the left-wing wants me out of here and they’ll do anything in their power” to achieve that. That message resonates with his supporters, known as Ford Nation, who helped their man win an election in October 2010 on a platform of less government, lower taxes and an end to the “gravy train” in municipal politics.

In fact, Mr Ford was largely the architect of his own downfall. Although there are no political parties at municipal level, his bombastic, polarising manner has prompted remorseless opposition. The turmoil surrounding him has added to the troubles of Canada’s business capital, a city of 2.6m that is struggling with an unwieldy political structure, financial strain and horrendous transport problems.

The mayor was caught talking on his mobile phone while driving (against the law in Ontario), reading while driving on the expressway (also illegal), using city staff and money to run a high-school football team that he skipped out of council meetings to coach, and ordering city staff to mend the road in front of his family’s business. He shrugged off most of these accusations, although he denied giving the finger to a woman and her six-year-old daughter who had gestured to him to stop using his mobile phone while driving.

The offence that caused Mr Ford’s ejection followed a familiar pattern. While still a city councillor, Mr Ford used his official status to raise C$3,150 ($3,170) for his private charity, a football foundation. He refused to repay the money, ignoring a request by the city’s integrity commissioner that was endorsed by the council. As mayor, he took part in a debate and a vote last February overturning the integrity commissioner’s findings. That was a breach of the law and the mandatory penalty was loss of office.

Mr Ford’s supporters have latched on to the disproportionate penalty—even the judge acknowledged that the act was “a very blunt instrument”—as a reason why he should keep his job. “I never believed there was a conflict of interest, because I had nothing to gain and the city had nothing to lose,” the mayor said. He plans to appeal against the decision.

But some of his fellow councillors want Mr Ford to step aside temporarily to curtail the uncertainty at city hall. The council could call a by-election or appoint a temporary mayor. Mr Ford’s term has been “a constant sideshow of litigation, gaffes and a distracting focus on high-school football,” said Josh Matlow, who represents a central ward. If the city council is to deal with Toronto’s problems, “this circus” must come to an end, he added.

Stand on the platform at St Andrew subway station in the city centre and Toronto’s problems are evident. The walls are grimy, and sections of vinyl panelling are missing. Renovations begun in 2009 are unfinished. Chronic underfunding of an overburdened public-transport network, and the council’s lengthy wrangling over a new plan have created a shabby and truncated subway that is unfit for the world-class metropolis Toronto claims to be. Although several new light-rail lines funded by Ontario’s provincial government are being built, the lack of public transport means that more than 70% of residents in the greater Toronto area with jobs drive to work. They face longer journey times than commuters in car-obsessed Los Angeles.

A second problem is that, whereas Chicago and other American cities have turned their waterfronts into attractive, accessible public areas, Toronto’s is hidden by a wall of apartment towers and separated from the city by an elevated expressway. Last year Mr Ford withdrew the city’s support for a redevelopment plan endorsed by the previous council as well as the provincial and federal governments, which both own parcels of lakefront land. He wanted to replace a proposed park with a mega-mall and a giant Ferris wheel. After much debate and delay, the city has reverted to the original plan.

Toronto still ranks highly on international lists of desirable places to live. But its politicians’ inability to come to grips with its problems is alienating some admirers. Richard Florida, an American urban guru who moved to Toronto in 2007, says the city is now “a more divided and contentious place, its once enviable social cohesion at risk, a growing split pitting downtown against the suburbs”.

This is not all Mr Ford’s fault. The province paved the way for political conflict in 1998 when it merged the city of Toronto with six surrounding municipalities. The effect was to set councillors like Mr Ford from sprawling suburbs, where the car is essential, against inner-city politicians who want more public transport and bicycle lanes, according to Robert Young, a political scientist at the University of Western Ontario. The lack of parties means that the 45-member council struggles to reach agreement. Mayors have profile but little power, a source of Mr Ford’s frustration.

In office, Mr Ford found there was less waste than he had thought, though he did slow the rate of increase in spending. But others worry that Canada’s big cities have insufficient revenue-raising powers. They must rely on the provinces and the federal government, which makes their funding less predictable. This has led to some seemingly desperate wheezes to get revenue: Toronto is competing to host a new casino and remote towns are striving to attract a nuclear-waste dump.

If he fails to cling on, Mr Ford is more likely to be remembered for his antics than for his small-government ideology. Either way, Toronto has work to do to keep its position as Canada’s leading city.

Correction: This article originally suggested that more than 70% of working Torontonians drive to their jobs. In fact that statistic applies to residents of the greater Toronto area. This was corrected on December 4th 2012.