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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
Fair - mea culpa on that.
policyoptions.irpp.org
Fair - mea culpa on that.
But, I still contend that straight white males are the dominant group in power.
Anyways, back to CPC:
A Conservative government may axe the carbon tax but then may have to bring it back
Before conservatives axe the carbon tax, they may want to consider that some countries use carbon tariffs to punish the climate change free-riders.
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.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 )?
Population of Canada by province and territory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
www.snopes.com
countryeconomy.com
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.
www.thestar.com
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.
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.
And how do you secure that vote?
Excellent question, but you can say that about any constitutional reform in this country
