Guys, in a note to subscribers we just published moments ago, I clarified that the version of this piece that went online, for what I think (but am not certain) was a weird technical glitch, was incomplete. Several paragraphs were missing. I've corrected the version above to its correct form, and apology to everyone, including and especially Ken, for the garble. I honestly don't know what happened. The preview version was correct!
I’m glad Pierre is gaining steam. Let’s hope this carries into 2025. A solid 10+ years of CPC majorities is what this country needs to undo the damage Trudeau inflicted.
Yes, because the best way to fix a problem is to spend 10 years smashing absolutely everything. Poilievre has never shown himself to be capable or inclined towards anything else.
Edit: Engaging on this at all was such a mistake, silly silly me.
At great risk, I'll try to respond in good faith (although I would request you not chew your apples so loudly, for the sake of polity).
Poilievre hasn't been able to smash anything because he isn't the PM, but his politics and conduct are almost entirely and exclusively defined by petulant antagonism, and I get that that's a huge part of his appeal (I despise him but I still appreciate the way he grilled Ahmed Hussen on housing prices).
The problem is that once he's done barking, he doesn't have anything substantive to follow up with. He said he'd fire Tiff Macklem, but didn't explain how that would help, or give a constructive idea for a subsequent action. He said he'd get rid of the carbon tax, but then what? We still need to finance climate damage mitigation, since it poses threats to infrastructure. He said he'd fire "gatekeepers" who impose unnecessary zoning restrictions, but he doesn't specify who those gatekeepers are, or how this would actually help (zoning is a problem, but so is the lack of public housing, which Poilievre has given no indication of increasing or addressing).
So no, he hasn't smashed anything, but his rhetoric indicates that, given the position of PM, he would do nothing but break things with a smile, and then turn the blame onto you when you suffer the consequences, because this is who he is and what he does. His politics are about opposition with nothing fruitful to offer once the breaking is done (which is amusingly ironic, given his love of apples).
Edit: not seeing anything substantive from the Poilievre supporters to this, so I suppose I can at least credit them for being on-brand.
I'm afraid he'll win but I think he's full of himself. I can't forget the images of him with shmoozing with the convoy clowns. We need a change from Trudeau, but Poilievre? I just can't stomach it.
Oh, the "convoy clowns." You mean the "Nazis" don't you? Well, of course that was according to our fearless (feckless? stupid? Yes to both!) leader. Who cannot bring himself to call Hamas Nazis.
How about decorum in the H of C? How about the debating convention of allowing one's opponent to complete their comment before butting in? How about our illusions about Canadian politicians when the leader of the opposition parades around the blockade on Wellington street in a suit, handing out dough-nuts and support to an outlaw group holding the downtown hostage shortly after they published a manifesto advocating the overthrow of Parliament?
I would love to see a column on why we have what seems like a lot of businesses withdrawing from the Canadian market. Kleenex isn't the only brand who has recently announced they'll no longer sell in Canada - why is that? Does the current CDN government's propensity to interfere in the economy make Canada less attractive? Or is it truly a logistics expense problem as claimed? Though I suppose one could say these two things are irrevocably interconnected since the carbon tax has such a direct impact on the cost of transportation and facilities.
As for HSBC - I don't really support RBC becoming even bigger. I'm not an HSBC customer, but am glad to see CPC pushing back on the merger even if it goes through anyways. (Also, I'm not a millenial - I'm older than that. And I suppose my "demographic" would make me assumed to be a Trudeau voter, but I most certainly will not be voting for Trudeau. There is really nothing I respect about him as a politician. I'd suspect that 55+ age range that supports Trudeau is geographically bound as my parents remember Pierre Trudeau and they've always distrusted "junior" because of his father's history. I know they're not alone in that belief, so it may be a fairly small group of women 55+ who are pro-Trudeau.)
Speaking as one in that older female demo, the one thing that elicits derision in older women is a preening self-absorbed man. But then again I’m not in the 905/604 - now I’m pondering 🤔 what this poll says about the women in those regions lol
It's curious for sure. I know my mom's thoughts (She's in her 60's) I'm in my late 40's and I know my own thoughts. BUT we are not the 905/604 demographic either.
I suspect that margins are so low that Canadian specific SKUs don't make sense. The government could easily harmonize product safety requirements with the US to allow the same SKUs to be sold north of the border. This would likley reduce prices and increase selection. It would also require the heresy of having two official systems of measurement and one official language 😊. Bring it on!
Lots of companies just use labels over top of the original label to meet Canadian requirements. There are differences between US and Canada that I agree with, and differences that I don't agree with. (Our food labeling laws are better and it's important for allergy families to be able to trust the food they're eating won't make them sick.)
Kleenex specifically cited storage and transportation for a low margin product. So I'm sure some of it is that. But business decisions are always much more complicated than what the public hears about - so I hope there is someone, somewhere, who is actually looking at these things with an open mind.
Given the product liability environment of the US, I'd be surprised if any American food safety standard didn't match or surpass that of Canada. I'm always skeptical of concerns over safety as they are usually based on heresay.
The Canadian retail sector is so highly concentrated and so exploitative of suppliers that it's difficult to make a go of it up here. We saw that with the Frito-Lay/Loblaw conflict - the battle of big firms. It's not surprising that a bunch of brands are giving up and leaving.
We're a relatively small market which keeps lots of companies/products out of Canada. Keep in mind the entire Canadian market has fewer people (spread out over a bigger area) than the state of California) Most taxes (like the carbon tax) don't really matter as it just gets priced in across the entire market. But things like specific labelling requirements add cost and complexity, which added to the smaller market size, make Canada a less attractive market for some.
From a production/manufacturing perspective, we used to compare well with the US. Our corporate taxes were lower, our healthcare meant companies didn't have to deal as much with insurance and we could still offer access to the the US market. But, the US lowered its corporate rate, Obamacare eroded some of the HC advantage and Mexico is even more attractive. Our trade deals and 'friendshoring' might be opportunities going forward.
This seems a lower risk strategy than Pollievre opposing the Shaw-Rogers mergers. I'd like Pollievre to run on ending protection of at least a few of: dairy, poultry, telecom, media and commercial aviation.
Trudeau and his cabal will soon be in desperation mode, if not already....we can expect ever more strident stories out of the MSM as they imagine the loss of millions of corporate welfare subsidies, quid pro quo.......one thing we shouldn't expect however is a sudden turn to adulthood on the part of Trudeau.....his is a permanent state of spoiled pampered child and that's good news for the country because it helps ensure his ultimate defeat.
I take exception to the assumption that the CPC/Poilievre stance vis HSBC is automatically political. It may be but we have grown too accustomed to the Libs governing by licking a finger and testing the political winds. I expect, like a lot of Pierre's policy positions, this one is just plain common sense and long term conviction. If so it's two elements that have been sadly lacking in our federal politics for the last 8 years.
The position of right of centre political parties is to leave business to do business without help or hindrance from government. This is a surprising departure from that principle, and it opens the question: what's next? {If Canada wants to attract foreign investment, it can't create barriers for it when it is time to leave.)
I'm not sure that I believe that Poilievre wants to win big. He wants to win, for sure, but it wouldn't be hard for him to tone down his smug dickishness (or maybe it would be hard?) so he would appeal to a lot more Canadians. I think PP is cynically going for an election win with the smallest possible number of votes. Right now younger people see him as a blank slate for their aspirations but older people know who he really is. He dodges the MSM because they are likely to bring up his history of being Harper's partisan attack dog and question his role in the robocall/Pierre Poutine crimes. Hopefully they would do that with more skill and preparation than the apple guy from the Okanagan. He seems to really enjoy "owning the libs" but that doesn't get houses built or CO2 emissions down...or votes from liberals.
The most recent example of PP's cynical attack dog ways was after the tragically embarrassing "old Nazi applauding incident". The next day PP, who clapped along with everyone else, was in the house blaming it on Trudeau. The Liberal house leader, who I never heard of before, calmly and quietly asked that MPs stick together on this for the good of Canada. Pierre was having none of it. I know this because I watched the Youtube video he put out showing this. He thinks it makes him look good. I think this would have been a good time to put aside the cheap shots and I would have respected him standing for the whole country. The most cynical part of this display was that PP knew that it was the Speaker's mistake and JT had zero to do with it. PP also knew that most of his supporters did NOT know that and he loves to fool his own voters. Not my kind of leader.
It really would be refreshing to find a political leader who is intellectually honest and doesn't take advantage of a very gullible and unsophisticated electorate. Unfortunately, that isn't P.P.
BD, just to ensure that I understand you, you have dismissed PP as being intellectually hones and not taking advantage. Where do you stand on JT and JS?
In order to evaluate your initial assertion and conclusion I would appreciate a more fulsome comment. As I say, it is hard when you drop kick one guy but ignore the others; it leaves one with the idea that you implicitly think them to be virtuous.
No Ken, I've suggested PP is intellectually dishonest in some of his positions and that in doing so he is taking advantage of a naive and unsophisticated electorate. More to the point, the column by Ken Boessenkool had as its subject PP, not any other politician. I am not into whataboutism; my comments were only about PP. You are free to infer whatever you want about people not mentioned.
Thanks, BD. I was also going point out that the article is specifically about Poilievre. For the record, I am unhappy with JT and I think JS is a decent but unfortunate lightweight. I think there is a very serious leadership vacuum in our country. That said, I am very uneasy about giving power to someone who has dedicated their career to furthering the "conservative movement" which, if you look it up, is all about serving the needs of the very rich. The easiest way to do that is to take away social programs from the rest of us...you know, the things they like to label as "entitlements". PP is long on how JT has ruined the world (and probably stole his bike) but very short on actual plans or solutions. Until he makes his plans clear I think it is reasonable to expect he would follow the path of the Republicans to the south. No thanks.
I understand the temptation to view each political stance a leader in Canada takes as being conditional on boosting popularity among a certain diaspora or social identity category but that is the logic of the progressive faction of the political Left and in particular Trudeau, Butts, Telford and more.
Poilievre has campaigned thus far on traditional conservative principles of prosperity (cost of living, powerful paychecks) and values of harmony among Canadians (pride in citizenship as opposed to ‘membership’ and post-national social contract view the Liberals would prefer).
Applying an ultra-progressive Left lens to a conservative platform might yield spurious results. A first attempt would be to look at the banking sale/merger in terms of market competition and best value for citizens especially since interest rates are at decade highs and that links to cost of mortgages which is #1 issue.
No doubt Poilievre knows that conservatives need to bolster their reputation with diaspora communities but why would he spend 12 months bashing Trudeau about ‘divide and distract’ zero sum politics only to engage in it himself first chance he gets?
Identity politics is a failed long term strategy and on the way out (see BLM transforming to a pro Hamas organization for proof!), Poilievre is focused on class politics and changing the national attitude from narcissism back to having some mojo again. Christ, maybe we’ll even be allowed enjoy a campfire guilt-free again. One can only hope.
HSBC has indicated that they're exiting Canadian market though. So they gotta sell to one bidder or another.
That said, let's nail down the demographic that's affected by this merger, namely Chinese Canadians. In 2021 CPC lost Chinese Canadians, losing long term seats in Richmond and Markham. If his opposition to merger does an impact, it will win him the demographic that abandoned CPC in 2021 though more sympathetic in the past.
Demographic this, demographic that. HSBC is exiting the Canadian market so as not to be obligated to freeze or debank customer accounts as directed by Trudeau and crew - or add even more inclusivity questions to their loan applications.
I acknowledge that from time to time the Conservatives (under whatever name) have received support from big business but it has always seemed to me that the real party of big business is/was the Liberals, from W.L.M. King (don't forget that he was a "consultant" to the Rockefellers immediately before he ran for the leadership) to C.D. Howe to Robert Winter to Mitchell Sharp to Pierre Elliott T. (I mean where did he retire to? An establishment law firm, of course.) to Paul Martin, etc., etc. You do acknowledge the Martin connection but I believe it very much predates Martin; and is still alive if you look at SNC-Lavalin (whomever they are now and, oh, let's not look at them!), Bombardier, all the big Canadian corporations, etc.
So, the Conservatives? Why the party of SMALL business and individuals with a small "c" approach.
Enough of this canard of the Conservatives being the party of big business.
The Liberals are the party of the Central Canadian consensus. They are the party of the technocracy and of the chattering classes. The Liberals are the small c conservative party in Canada in that the current environment suits them just fine.
I agree that they reflect Central Canada but, more particularly, they reflect a combination of the Central Canada (Laurentian, you know) elite and an appeal to the wokeism side of society, i.e. the chattering classes, as you say.
I disagree insofar as the Liberals have ALWAYS been the party of big business. Currently, the only conservative thing about the Liberals is that so much big business has adopted the ultra liberal (small "l") woke ideology. Well, at least in terms of social things that relate to how these big businesses present themselves to people. As to anything to do with actual business dealings, those businesses are all profit, all the time.
Small "c" conservatives are found in the CPC. Previously, many small "c" conservatives deserted the CPC in favor of the Peoples' Party (ug!) as they felt that the CPC was ever so close to being the Liberal Party. Many, but not all, of those folks have now returned to the CPC.
As for technocracy? Well, I did talk about big business.
I'd be curious to see what the numbers are for gay voters compared to prior elections. So many in my "community' are switching Conservative to the point I'm legitimately surprised.
Thank you for this. I too am puzzled by those who believe that the Conservative Party (Reform Party) is "pro-big-business". To conclude such is to demonstrate an ignorance of Canadian political history.
WRT Justin Trudeau's support amongst those above the age of 55, this boomer would point out that his government has utterly failed on foreign policy issues, on defence and on intelligence and alliance building.
Unless, of course, the Liberals were to find a compelling leader to replace Trudeau--someone who, in addition to attending to domestic problems, would also concern themselves with rebuilding Canada's defence capabilities and its foreign policy credibility.
Mind you, any party that maintained their opposition to the witch's brew of libertarian anti-establishment politics that Pierre Poilievre continues to indulge... would also have my support.
NB: I've ruled out the NDP because of its own "base-focused" politics.
Guys, in a note to subscribers we just published moments ago, I clarified that the version of this piece that went online, for what I think (but am not certain) was a weird technical glitch, was incomplete. Several paragraphs were missing. I've corrected the version above to its correct form, and apology to everyone, including and especially Ken, for the garble. I honestly don't know what happened. The preview version was correct!
Accepted!!
I’m glad Pierre is gaining steam. Let’s hope this carries into 2025. A solid 10+ years of CPC majorities is what this country needs to undo the damage Trudeau inflicted.
Yes, because the best way to fix a problem is to spend 10 years smashing absolutely everything. Poilievre has never shown himself to be capable or inclined towards anything else.
Edit: Engaging on this at all was such a mistake, silly silly me.
Cope and seethe.
Omg 🤣😂🤣Love this!
What is one thing Pierre smashed? 🍎Name just one. 🍎Give me an example. 🍎I’m waiting🍎🍎🍎
At great risk, I'll try to respond in good faith (although I would request you not chew your apples so loudly, for the sake of polity).
Poilievre hasn't been able to smash anything because he isn't the PM, but his politics and conduct are almost entirely and exclusively defined by petulant antagonism, and I get that that's a huge part of his appeal (I despise him but I still appreciate the way he grilled Ahmed Hussen on housing prices).
The problem is that once he's done barking, he doesn't have anything substantive to follow up with. He said he'd fire Tiff Macklem, but didn't explain how that would help, or give a constructive idea for a subsequent action. He said he'd get rid of the carbon tax, but then what? We still need to finance climate damage mitigation, since it poses threats to infrastructure. He said he'd fire "gatekeepers" who impose unnecessary zoning restrictions, but he doesn't specify who those gatekeepers are, or how this would actually help (zoning is a problem, but so is the lack of public housing, which Poilievre has given no indication of increasing or addressing).
So no, he hasn't smashed anything, but his rhetoric indicates that, given the position of PM, he would do nothing but break things with a smile, and then turn the blame onto you when you suffer the consequences, because this is who he is and what he does. His politics are about opposition with nothing fruitful to offer once the breaking is done (which is amusingly ironic, given his love of apples).
Edit: not seeing anything substantive from the Poilievre supporters to this, so I suppose I can at least credit them for being on-brand.
I'm afraid he'll win but I think he's full of himself. I can't forget the images of him with shmoozing with the convoy clowns. We need a change from Trudeau, but Poilievre? I just can't stomach it.
Oh, the "convoy clowns." You mean the "Nazis" don't you? Well, of course that was according to our fearless (feckless? stupid? Yes to both!) leader. Who cannot bring himself to call Hamas Nazis.
You mean those convoy clowns?
Convoy clowns.
How about decorum in the H of C? How about the debating convention of allowing one's opponent to complete their comment before butting in? How about our illusions about Canadian politicians when the leader of the opposition parades around the blockade on Wellington street in a suit, handing out dough-nuts and support to an outlaw group holding the downtown hostage shortly after they published a manifesto advocating the overthrow of Parliament?
If you think that disruptive behavior is a new thing in the HoC, I have some bad news for you.
I merely answered the question.
Give the man a chance ...
I would love to see a column on why we have what seems like a lot of businesses withdrawing from the Canadian market. Kleenex isn't the only brand who has recently announced they'll no longer sell in Canada - why is that? Does the current CDN government's propensity to interfere in the economy make Canada less attractive? Or is it truly a logistics expense problem as claimed? Though I suppose one could say these two things are irrevocably interconnected since the carbon tax has such a direct impact on the cost of transportation and facilities.
As for HSBC - I don't really support RBC becoming even bigger. I'm not an HSBC customer, but am glad to see CPC pushing back on the merger even if it goes through anyways. (Also, I'm not a millenial - I'm older than that. And I suppose my "demographic" would make me assumed to be a Trudeau voter, but I most certainly will not be voting for Trudeau. There is really nothing I respect about him as a politician. I'd suspect that 55+ age range that supports Trudeau is geographically bound as my parents remember Pierre Trudeau and they've always distrusted "junior" because of his father's history. I know they're not alone in that belief, so it may be a fairly small group of women 55+ who are pro-Trudeau.)
Speaking as one in that older female demo, the one thing that elicits derision in older women is a preening self-absorbed man. But then again I’m not in the 905/604 - now I’m pondering 🤔 what this poll says about the women in those regions lol
It's curious for sure. I know my mom's thoughts (She's in her 60's) I'm in my late 40's and I know my own thoughts. BUT we are not the 905/604 demographic either.
Yer bucking the trend Ruth...
I suspect that margins are so low that Canadian specific SKUs don't make sense. The government could easily harmonize product safety requirements with the US to allow the same SKUs to be sold north of the border. This would likley reduce prices and increase selection. It would also require the heresy of having two official systems of measurement and one official language 😊. Bring it on!
Lots of companies just use labels over top of the original label to meet Canadian requirements. There are differences between US and Canada that I agree with, and differences that I don't agree with. (Our food labeling laws are better and it's important for allergy families to be able to trust the food they're eating won't make them sick.)
Kleenex specifically cited storage and transportation for a low margin product. So I'm sure some of it is that. But business decisions are always much more complicated than what the public hears about - so I hope there is someone, somewhere, who is actually looking at these things with an open mind.
Given the product liability environment of the US, I'd be surprised if any American food safety standard didn't match or surpass that of Canada. I'm always skeptical of concerns over safety as they are usually based on heresay.
The Canadian retail sector is so highly concentrated and so exploitative of suppliers that it's difficult to make a go of it up here. We saw that with the Frito-Lay/Loblaw conflict - the battle of big firms. It's not surprising that a bunch of brands are giving up and leaving.
We're a relatively small market which keeps lots of companies/products out of Canada. Keep in mind the entire Canadian market has fewer people (spread out over a bigger area) than the state of California) Most taxes (like the carbon tax) don't really matter as it just gets priced in across the entire market. But things like specific labelling requirements add cost and complexity, which added to the smaller market size, make Canada a less attractive market for some.
From a production/manufacturing perspective, we used to compare well with the US. Our corporate taxes were lower, our healthcare meant companies didn't have to deal as much with insurance and we could still offer access to the the US market. But, the US lowered its corporate rate, Obamacare eroded some of the HC advantage and Mexico is even more attractive. Our trade deals and 'friendshoring' might be opportunities going forward.
Asking Freeland to do something sensible and reasonable is like asking dandilions to stop spreading.
Dandelions grow where they are needed. Once the soil's potassium level is up, they naturally die out.
You might wish to try a different simile.
"You might wish to try a different simile."
Why? After all, a dandelion is a noxious weed to most folks and Freeland is .....
This seems a lower risk strategy than Pollievre opposing the Shaw-Rogers mergers. I'd like Pollievre to run on ending protection of at least a few of: dairy, poultry, telecom, media and commercial aviation.
Trudeau and his cabal will soon be in desperation mode, if not already....we can expect ever more strident stories out of the MSM as they imagine the loss of millions of corporate welfare subsidies, quid pro quo.......one thing we shouldn't expect however is a sudden turn to adulthood on the part of Trudeau.....his is a permanent state of spoiled pampered child and that's good news for the country because it helps ensure his ultimate defeat.
I take exception to the assumption that the CPC/Poilievre stance vis HSBC is automatically political. It may be but we have grown too accustomed to the Libs governing by licking a finger and testing the political winds. I expect, like a lot of Pierre's policy positions, this one is just plain common sense and long term conviction. If so it's two elements that have been sadly lacking in our federal politics for the last 8 years.
The position of right of centre political parties is to leave business to do business without help or hindrance from government. This is a surprising departure from that principle, and it opens the question: what's next? {If Canada wants to attract foreign investment, it can't create barriers for it when it is time to leave.)
I'm not sure that I believe that Poilievre wants to win big. He wants to win, for sure, but it wouldn't be hard for him to tone down his smug dickishness (or maybe it would be hard?) so he would appeal to a lot more Canadians. I think PP is cynically going for an election win with the smallest possible number of votes. Right now younger people see him as a blank slate for their aspirations but older people know who he really is. He dodges the MSM because they are likely to bring up his history of being Harper's partisan attack dog and question his role in the robocall/Pierre Poutine crimes. Hopefully they would do that with more skill and preparation than the apple guy from the Okanagan. He seems to really enjoy "owning the libs" but that doesn't get houses built or CO2 emissions down...or votes from liberals.
The most recent example of PP's cynical attack dog ways was after the tragically embarrassing "old Nazi applauding incident". The next day PP, who clapped along with everyone else, was in the house blaming it on Trudeau. The Liberal house leader, who I never heard of before, calmly and quietly asked that MPs stick together on this for the good of Canada. Pierre was having none of it. I know this because I watched the Youtube video he put out showing this. He thinks it makes him look good. I think this would have been a good time to put aside the cheap shots and I would have respected him standing for the whole country. The most cynical part of this display was that PP knew that it was the Speaker's mistake and JT had zero to do with it. PP also knew that most of his supporters did NOT know that and he loves to fool his own voters. Not my kind of leader.
It really would be refreshing to find a political leader who is intellectually honest and doesn't take advantage of a very gullible and unsophisticated electorate. Unfortunately, that isn't P.P.
BD, just to ensure that I understand you, you have dismissed PP as being intellectually hones and not taking advantage. Where do you stand on JT and JS?
In order to evaluate your initial assertion and conclusion I would appreciate a more fulsome comment. As I say, it is hard when you drop kick one guy but ignore the others; it leaves one with the idea that you implicitly think them to be virtuous.
No Ken, I've suggested PP is intellectually dishonest in some of his positions and that in doing so he is taking advantage of a naive and unsophisticated electorate. More to the point, the column by Ken Boessenkool had as its subject PP, not any other politician. I am not into whataboutism; my comments were only about PP. You are free to infer whatever you want about people not mentioned.
Thanks, BD. I was also going point out that the article is specifically about Poilievre. For the record, I am unhappy with JT and I think JS is a decent but unfortunate lightweight. I think there is a very serious leadership vacuum in our country. That said, I am very uneasy about giving power to someone who has dedicated their career to furthering the "conservative movement" which, if you look it up, is all about serving the needs of the very rich. The easiest way to do that is to take away social programs from the rest of us...you know, the things they like to label as "entitlements". PP is long on how JT has ruined the world (and probably stole his bike) but very short on actual plans or solutions. Until he makes his plans clear I think it is reasonable to expect he would follow the path of the Republicans to the south. No thanks.
I understand the temptation to view each political stance a leader in Canada takes as being conditional on boosting popularity among a certain diaspora or social identity category but that is the logic of the progressive faction of the political Left and in particular Trudeau, Butts, Telford and more.
Poilievre has campaigned thus far on traditional conservative principles of prosperity (cost of living, powerful paychecks) and values of harmony among Canadians (pride in citizenship as opposed to ‘membership’ and post-national social contract view the Liberals would prefer).
Applying an ultra-progressive Left lens to a conservative platform might yield spurious results. A first attempt would be to look at the banking sale/merger in terms of market competition and best value for citizens especially since interest rates are at decade highs and that links to cost of mortgages which is #1 issue.
No doubt Poilievre knows that conservatives need to bolster their reputation with diaspora communities but why would he spend 12 months bashing Trudeau about ‘divide and distract’ zero sum politics only to engage in it himself first chance he gets?
Identity politics is a failed long term strategy and on the way out (see BLM transforming to a pro Hamas organization for proof!), Poilievre is focused on class politics and changing the national attitude from narcissism back to having some mojo again. Christ, maybe we’ll even be allowed enjoy a campfire guilt-free again. One can only hope.
Quite obviously Trudeau’s minions trying to silence unfriendly opinions. lol
Perhaps he ought also to address the other oligopolies in this country.
HSBC has indicated that they're exiting Canadian market though. So they gotta sell to one bidder or another.
That said, let's nail down the demographic that's affected by this merger, namely Chinese Canadians. In 2021 CPC lost Chinese Canadians, losing long term seats in Richmond and Markham. If his opposition to merger does an impact, it will win him the demographic that abandoned CPC in 2021 though more sympathetic in the past.
I hate to say this, but I wonder who China favours and how they'll sway the Canadian diaspora.
Obviously the more malleable Liberal Party.
Demographic this, demographic that. HSBC is exiting the Canadian market so as not to be obligated to freeze or debank customer accounts as directed by Trudeau and crew - or add even more inclusivity questions to their loan applications.
Just a quick point, Mr. B.
I acknowledge that from time to time the Conservatives (under whatever name) have received support from big business but it has always seemed to me that the real party of big business is/was the Liberals, from W.L.M. King (don't forget that he was a "consultant" to the Rockefellers immediately before he ran for the leadership) to C.D. Howe to Robert Winter to Mitchell Sharp to Pierre Elliott T. (I mean where did he retire to? An establishment law firm, of course.) to Paul Martin, etc., etc. You do acknowledge the Martin connection but I believe it very much predates Martin; and is still alive if you look at SNC-Lavalin (whomever they are now and, oh, let's not look at them!), Bombardier, all the big Canadian corporations, etc.
So, the Conservatives? Why the party of SMALL business and individuals with a small "c" approach.
Enough of this canard of the Conservatives being the party of big business.
The Liberals are the party of the Central Canadian consensus. They are the party of the technocracy and of the chattering classes. The Liberals are the small c conservative party in Canada in that the current environment suits them just fine.
Kico, I respectfully disagree in part.
I agree that they reflect Central Canada but, more particularly, they reflect a combination of the Central Canada (Laurentian, you know) elite and an appeal to the wokeism side of society, i.e. the chattering classes, as you say.
I disagree insofar as the Liberals have ALWAYS been the party of big business. Currently, the only conservative thing about the Liberals is that so much big business has adopted the ultra liberal (small "l") woke ideology. Well, at least in terms of social things that relate to how these big businesses present themselves to people. As to anything to do with actual business dealings, those businesses are all profit, all the time.
Small "c" conservatives are found in the CPC. Previously, many small "c" conservatives deserted the CPC in favor of the Peoples' Party (ug!) as they felt that the CPC was ever so close to being the Liberal Party. Many, but not all, of those folks have now returned to the CPC.
As for technocracy? Well, I did talk about big business.
I'd be curious to see what the numbers are for gay voters compared to prior elections. So many in my "community' are switching Conservative to the point I'm legitimately surprised.
Thank you for this. I too am puzzled by those who believe that the Conservative Party (Reform Party) is "pro-big-business". To conclude such is to demonstrate an ignorance of Canadian political history.
WRT Justin Trudeau's support amongst those above the age of 55, this boomer would point out that his government has utterly failed on foreign policy issues, on defence and on intelligence and alliance building.
Unless, of course, the Liberals were to find a compelling leader to replace Trudeau--someone who, in addition to attending to domestic problems, would also concern themselves with rebuilding Canada's defence capabilities and its foreign policy credibility.
Mind you, any party that maintained their opposition to the witch's brew of libertarian anti-establishment politics that Pierre Poilievre continues to indulge... would also have my support.
NB: I've ruled out the NDP because of its own "base-focused" politics.
Sigh.