• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

It's an entirely ideological definition.

In spite of a changing reality, the excluded will always be straight white males, as the others gain more power and ramp up their hatred of them.
Always? In Canada, “straight white males” are still the majority in leadership positions. They also haven’t had to fight (in some cases quite literally) for citizenship or voting rights.

As one example, Canadian-born Chinese were not considered citizens until 1947, even though there were Chinese in Canada since the 1800s. The Chinese Head Tax was the first time that there was a specific discriminatory action in Canada based on ethnicity.
 
Always? In Canada, “straight white males” are still the majority in leadership positions. They also haven’t had to fight (in some cases quite literally) for citizenship or voting rights.
That could not be more false.

White males obtained universal suffrage merely 33 years before white women.

Many died in 1837-38 specifically in the name of democracy.

You can't just cherry pick history to fit the narrative.
 
At least, we assume they're straight. Who's to say that Scott Moe and Doug Ford don't have something going on on the down low?
Lol! So then has Eby has been forced to indulge in some whacky stuff with purple and orange coloured teachers in order to gain the leadership of the gender Marxist party.
 
Always? In Canada, “straight white males” are still the majority in leadership positions. They also haven’t had to fight (in some cases quite literally) for citizenship or voting rights.

As one example, Canadian-born Chinese were not considered citizens until 1947, even though there were Chinese in Canada since the 1800s. The Chinese Head Tax was the first time that there was a specific discriminatory action in Canada based on ethnicity.
I would suggest it’s a tiny sub-set of white males, who mostly come from the Golden Triangle, go to the same schools and come from the upper to upper-middle class, and mostly share the same opinions. Then when they seek to “diversify”, they look for brown people who share their backgrounds and perspectives.

It’s not evil or nefarious. It’s how the meritocracy evolves into an aristocracy.
 
Interesting article about the Conservatives relationship with millennials, business professionals and working blue collar union/non union (as opposed to union public sector) and especially the growing disconnect with plutocrats in business.


Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Ken Boessenkool: The CPC is not, and has never been, the party of big business


Poilievre is saying the quiet part out loud: The Tories don't care about the companies. Companies don't vote or donate. But workers do.​

MAY 23
Pierre Poilievre speaks with workers at the AltaGas propane export facility. Image from Poilievre’s X account.
By: Ken Boessenkool
The Conservative Party of Canada is not, nor has it ever been, the party of big business.
This comes as a surprise to many.
Most people think of Conservatives as the party of big business. It’s built into age-old assumptions made by voters about conservative parties. This is particularly true of low-information swing voters — you know, the ones who decide elections. Not only do they assume it, for the most part, they don’t like it. It’s an epithet, not a compliment.
It’s kind of odd, because it’s not consistent with the voter coalition Pierre Poilievre has assembled. Across age groups in Abacus’s latest polling (thanks for the cross tabs, David Coletto!), Poilievre’s support is highest among millennials (ages 30-44), at 47 per cent. Millennials were a key demographic that made Justin Trudeau prime minister in 2015. Today they believe they’ll never own a home and are experiencing inflation for the first time in their lives. As a result, millennials are a key demographic that would make Pierre Poilievre prime minister if an election were held today.
Share
Across education levels, Poilievre’s support is highest among those who went to college at 47 per cent, and lowest among those who went to university at 41 per cent. The former are largely blue-collar workers (especially among men, where Poilievre’s support is at 49 per cent). In addition housing and inflation, these blue-collar men feel abandoned by the NDP because it spends more time talking about identity than inflation. (I’m relying on the Abacus survey conducted April 25 to 29, with 1,500 respondents).
There is a lot we can learn from these numbers, but here’s something that jumped out at me: Poilievre’s voter coalition is far from aligned with business interests — and he knows it.
That’s not new. The disconnect between big business and the Conservative Party of Canada goes back to its roots.
When Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper were negotiating the deal to create what would ultimately become the Conservative Party of Canada, Paul Martin was sweeping the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Every person who cared knew that Martin would win without raising a finger. Yet Martin still went out and raised $10 million dollars, nearly all from corporate Canada. Big banks ponied up $50,000. Each. Big oil companies ponied up $50,000. Each. Big telecom ponied up $50,000. Each. Membership in what was then the Business Council of National Issues — a trophy case of Canada’s biggest companies — was indistinguishable from a list of Paul Martin’s donors: $50,000 here, $50,000 there, $50,000 everywhere.
(This was a terribly bad bet, which got exposed when Paul Martin, Juggernaut became Paul Martin, Jugger-NOT.)
Most of the CEOs of these companies never met Stephen Harper before he became the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Only two or three of those companies made sizeable contributions to Harper’s leadership race, which was held just months after the coronation of Paul Martin. Harper raised $2.67 million, nearly all from small individual donors.
Poilievre and those critical to his success were there when the roots of the party he now leads took hold. To extend the metaphor, they helped plant the seeds that became those roots.
Then came the slow removal of corporate contributions to political parties.
Motivated by corporate duplicitousness in the Sponsorship Scandal and his abiding dislike for Martin, the wily Jean Chrétien limited the ability of corporate Canada to donate to political parties. Big corporate donations were replaced with big public subsidies
Harper, understanding both of Chrétien’s motivations, finished the job. He eliminated corporation donations, and, eventually, public subsidies to political parties. It crippled the Liberal Party of Canada for nearly a decade.
Share The Line
Eliminating corporate funding of politics presaged a fundamental shift in our politics: no political party cares that much about corporate Canada anymore. Companies cannot give money. Companies cannot vote.
Individuals — workers and customers — can do both.
It also presaged a shift in the type of economic issues discussed in politics today. We’ve seen it shift from macro-economic issues (employment, deficits/debt, trade and economic growth) to micro-economic issues (cost of living, service delivery and housing). Our politics have become much more individualistic. This is true for non-economic issues as well.
This shift is not well understood by corporate Canada, who also consider Conservatives the party of big business. It’s built into their assumptions. They like it. For them, it is a compliment, not an epithet.
Much of corporate Canada didn’t follow or understand the shifts that had occurred in our politics between prime minister Brian Mulroney and prime minister Harper. That was understandable, they had businesses to run and left politics to politicians. But this means that many senior corporate leaders during the early Harper years assumed that the Conservative Party of Canada was aligned with their company’s interests.
They were surprised to learn that the Conservative Party of Canada doesn’t care about individual companies, individual companies’ sales or individual’s companies’ profitability. Companies can’t vote. Companies can’t give money. The Conservative Party of Canada does care about those companies’ employees and customers. They can vote and give money.
Harper never really said this bit out loud. Poilievre has.
It came as a surprise to many. But it really isn’t a surprise at all.
Ken Boessenkool is a founding partner of Meredith Boessenkool Policy Advisors and has advised politicians from Preston Manning to Stephen Harper to Christy Clark and a few more in between.


The Line is entirely reader funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today.

 
That could not be more false.

White males obtained universal suffrage merely 33 years before white women.

Many died in 1837-38 specifically in the name of democracy.

You can't just cherry pick history to fit the narrative.
Fair - mea culpa on that.

But, I still contend that straight white males are the dominant group in power.

Anyways, back to CPC:

 
Fair - mea culpa on that.

But, I still contend that straight white males are the dominant group in power.

Anyways, back to CPC:


Pick a country in the world and I will tell you the race of the men in power. The exceptions all speak English.
 
My idea is 39 Senators, three per province and territory all elected and no political affiliation .

Similar to our friends and neighbours to the south. Two senators per state.


39 Senators, three per province and territory

Wonder how Quebec ( 24 senators ) will like it compared to Nunavut, NW Territories and Yukon ( 1 senator each )?

 
Similar to our friends and neighbours to the south. Two senators per state.




Wonder how Quebec ( 24 senators ) will like it compared to Nunavut, NW Territories and Yukon ( 1 senator each )?

But, notwithstanding jury rigging the electoral maps, the House is done representation by population. Therefore the two houses balance the concerns of the populace with the concerns of the states. No majority rule; no minority rule. Nothing happens unless both are reconciled.

In theory…
 
No majority rule; no minority rule.

In theory…

Right...

Anyway, their theory is their problem. But, I always bet on Red.

Saw this about that.

5 of 6 conservative Supreme Court justices were appointed by GOP presidents who lost popular vote & confirmed by senators representing minority of Americans



Up here at home,

My idea is 39 Senators, three per province and territory all elected and no political affiliation .

Have to wait and see how that theory works out.

Wonder how Quebec ( 24 senators ) will like it compared to Nunavut, NW Territories and Yukon ( 1 senator each )?
 
While Wyoming and California each get 2 senators, it’s worth noting that California gets 52 House seats compared to Wyoming’s 1 seat.

Gerrymandering House districts is a whole other kettle of fish.
 
,it’s worth noting that California gets 52 House seats compared to Wyoming’s 1 seat.


, the House is done representation by population.

Right.

In that case, it may, or may not, also be worth noting: California has 67 times the population of Wyoming.


Americans will decide what is best for their country.

For us Canadians, I find this an interesting theory,

My idea is 39 Senators, three per province and territory all elected and no political affiliation .
 
The size of population or lack there of should not be the deciding factor in distribution of representation.

The population of thousands has as much a right to action and attention from their government(s) as the population of millions.
 
The size of population or lack there of should not be the deciding factor in distribution of representation.

The population of thousands has as much a right to action and attention from their government(s) as the population of millions.
I would support reform for the senate, however I wouldn’t just do equal division, it doesn’t make sense. PEI should not pull the same weight as anyone considering they are not even the size of most cities in the country.

I would still guarantee at least one seat to each province/territory, but it would be on a percentage of population after that.

I would possibly even say they should still be appointed, just by the Provinces as a safeguard of their rights. As provincial governments change so would the appointees. Since our provincial governments tend to be fairly diverse it would really open up a new avenue of debate and potential laws that effect the whole country. My main concern would be the risk of the provinces gaining too much power and it resulting in a deadlocked system like the States.
 

Some ridings have fewer than 40,000 people. Others are closer to 160,000.

One person, one vote? In Canada, it’s not even close​


I would support reform for the senate, however I wouldn’t just do equal division, it doesn’t make sense. PEI should not pull the same weight as anyone considering they are not even the size of most cities in the country.

I would still guarantee at least one seat to each province/territory, but it would be on a percentage of population after that.

I would possibly even say they should still be appointed, just by the Provinces as a safeguard of their rights. As provincial governments change so would the appointees. Since our provincial governments tend to be fairly diverse it would really open up a new avenue of debate and potential laws that effect the whole country. My main concern would be the risk of the provinces gaining too much power and it resulting in a deadlocked system like the States.

Be interesting here in Canada if this idea is taken seriously,

39 Senators, three per province and territory
 
I would support reform for the senate, however I wouldn’t just do equal division, it doesn’t make sense. PEI should not pull the same weight as anyone considering they are not even the size of most cities in the country.

I would still guarantee at least one seat to each province/territory, but it would be on a percentage of population after that.

I would possibly even say they should still be appointed, just by the Provinces as a safeguard of their rights. As provincial governments change so would the appointees. Since our provincial governments tend to be fairly diverse it would really open up a new avenue of debate and potential laws that effect the whole country. My main concern would be the risk of the provinces gaining too much power and it resulting in a deadlocked system like the States.
I don't think the current numbers are problematic. If you think there's an issue worth reforming the Constitution, I'm not sure tinkering around the edges would do the job.

I'm taking this opportunity to once again promote my idea that it is the provinces that should name senators, not the Federal PM. That would force the PMO to come up with policies that actually satisfy interests from coast to coast and respect provincial autonomy, while reinvigorating the Senate, granting it greater legitimacy to block bills outright instead of just delaying them.
 
I don't think the current numbers are problematic. If you think there's an issue worth reforming the Constitution, I'm not sure tinkering around the edges would do the job.

I'm taking this opportunity to once again promote my idea that it is the provinces that should name senators, not the Federal PM. That would force the PMO to come up with policies that actually satisfy interests from coast to coast and respect provincial autonomy, while reinvigorating the Senate, granting it greater legitimacy to block bills outright instead of just delaying them.
Overall I think we have a pretty good system, some tinkering is needed to make it better, but it isn’t worth throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Right now the senate legally has the same legitimacy as the house of commons, they choose not to utilize those powers.

Senate reform needs to be done carefully, give too much power to any particular authority and you run the risk of not progressing at all.

If we aren’t going the tinker with the current system route I think doing more direct voting much like the Swiss is a better way to reform our democracy. Abolish the senate and allow citizens to repeal laws they don’t like by popular vote. Still have the house of commons, just to write and draft laws. That however is a hard sell for politicians though as it greatly reduces their powers.

Technologically we are at the point of instant communication, I don’t need a ‘representative’ to vote for me anymore.
 
Overall I think we have a pretty good system, some tinkering is needed to make it better, but it isn’t worth throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Right now the senate legally has the same legitimacy as the house of commons, they choose not to utilize those powers.

Senate reform needs to be done carefully, give too much power to any particular authority and you run the risk of not progressing at all.

If we aren’t going the tinker with the current system route I think doing more direct voting much like the Swiss is a better way to reform our democracy. Abolish the senate and allow citizens to repeal laws they don’t like by popular vote. Still have the house of commons, just to write and draft laws. That however is a hard sell for politicians though as it greatly reduces their powers.

Technologically we are at the point of instant communication, I don’t need a ‘representative’ to vote for me anymore.
And how do you secure that vote?
 
Back
Top