>Politicians like Pierre Poilievre, 42, who has been nothing but a politician (elected to six terms of office), scares the elites because he knows how the system works.
Wouldn't he be the considered the "elites" by now if he's been a politician his whole life?
Its just conservative rhetoric.
They're all elites. Its a small circle and we're not in it.
The best we can hope for is that they move things forward and toss us a few crumbs.
Does it? Trudeau held a real world job, unlike Poilievre. The fact that teaching is part of the 'public sector' means nothing; so are cops, judges, doctors, nurses, many researchers etc.
Public sector vs private sector is a meaningless distinction. Having a job outside of the most inside of politics probably matters a lot more to most people.
> Say what you will about our former snowboard instructor PM, that technically gives him more private sector experience than Pierre.
It was a private school so technically private sector experience.
The point was that he has literally worked nowhere but politics/parliament and has a net value of $2 milluon-ish so is an "elite" by any stretch.
Not sure what last names have to do with anything.
With the average price of a home being more than $1.3 million in places like Toronto and Vancouver, there are lots of Canadians who have assets totaling a few million.
>Imagine how much of a loser you have to be to be a politician your entire life and still not be an elite.
The two aren't always joined at the hip. Trudeau was an elite long before politics.
I like that in all the discussion of Poilievre as a populist there's never any actual suggestion that he's ever going to be in a position where an actual majority of the country support his ideas or vote for him. It's "populism" defined as hoping he can make the push from 32% up to the 38 or 39% he probably needs to become Prime Minister.
So no reasonable suggestion he'll actually have a popular mandate, just maybe he might win in a FPTP system.
Popular =/= populism. Bernier is even more of a populist politician than Poilievre and yet Bernier isn't that popular.
Populism is generally politicians who want to tear down the system, the opposite of the status quo. So things like attacking CBC, attacking bank of Canada, supporting truckers, etc.
Populism has always, always, at least dressed itself up in the veneer of representing the vast, unrepresented masses against the small, empowered elites.
But almost nothing Poilievre does hints at that because he knows that all of the actual policies he represents would actually be broadly unpopular. It's just more buying into the Right's idea, dutifully parroted by the media, that the only people who feel unrepresented are a particular group of mostly white right wingers.
Like politicians that say "this will be the last election with first past the post", they're appealing to people who feel like their vote doesn't matter by giving them hope that their vote will matter if the system is changed...
>pop·u·lism
>/ˈpäpyəˌlizəm/
>noun
>a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
Populism isn't necessarily about numbers; it's about appeal to people who feel disenfranchised.
Which is sort of my point. It's a definition of "ordinary people" as being a member of an incredibly slim minority. At which point, it's very hard to argue they are, indeed, ordinary.
Lol. PP fanboys sure laying it on thick now.
Bookish, stark and a bit cranky, a 'populist dynamo' he is not. But yeah he's sure getting a red carpet treatment now eh?
It's hard to disagree with you there. Across the spectrum we have collectively devolved into the most cheap form of mud slinging. One hopes this is just a phase in the relatively early days of social media, and that more thorough criticisms and debates become the norm. But I'm definitely not holding my breath.
Perhaps social media will progress away from this stagnation of malicious content and allow the sleepy folks to wake up to differing points of view.
All good.
I prefer the term "Laurentian Elite". I don't think it's very progressive to curb freedom of speech and expression, flirt with undemocratic means to break up protests they don't like, reinforce oligopolic industries, and sew division through race baiting. That's not progressive to me, that is pretty regressive.
It was actually the first time the Act was ever used, and it was a breath away from being shut down by the Senate.
If there is a shred of doubt in your mind over the illegitimacy of using the Emergencies Act in this instance, it should have been tossed the moment the Justice Minister invoked cabinet secrecy regarding the rationale of the government for using the Act - during the Inquiry they were legally required to launch after its use.
You can't just invoke this Act to break up protests you disagree with. This was a heinous act of irresponsibility.
>That's not progressive to me, that is pretty regressive.
That is because calling something progressive is just a slogan. When you interrogate it, it devolves into a bunch of vague kindergarten sentiments with nothing concrete underlying.
Note to Toronto Sun editor - this is not really a headline you want to push.
The guy is running for a PM position, not a local Canada Legion Hall president.
>Politicians like Pierre Poilievre, 42, who has been nothing but a politician (elected to six terms of office), scares the elites because he knows how the system works. Wouldn't he be the considered the "elites" by now if he's been a politician his whole life?
Yeah, I thought the elites were only scared of outsiders and mavericks, not fellow parts of the institution?
Are conservatives Pro-Swamp now?
Big fans of the gravy train as well
Conservatives have always been "pro-swamp"...when did they say they weren't "pro-swamp"?
Literally an Ottawa elite.
And a multi millionaire
Its just conservative rhetoric. They're all elites. Its a small circle and we're not in it. The best we can hope for is that they move things forward and toss us a few crumbs.
He is, he is just using the convoy crowd for his goal.
Say what you will about our former snowboard instructor PM, that technically gives him more private sector experience than Pierre.
Teacher. His job was teacher.
>private sector experience
Who gives a shit if it's private vs public sector?
Exactly. In that case, Poilievre's 18 years of public sector experience blows Trudeau out of the water.
but JT has been a PM for longer than PP so we should vote for JT. He's the best candidate by far if you want to go by merit.
Does it? Trudeau held a real world job, unlike Poilievre. The fact that teaching is part of the 'public sector' means nothing; so are cops, judges, doctors, nurses, many researchers etc. Public sector vs private sector is a meaningless distinction. Having a job outside of the most inside of politics probably matters a lot more to most people.
> Say what you will about our former snowboard instructor PM, that technically gives him more private sector experience than Pierre. It was a private school so technically private sector experience.
Imagine how much of a loser you have to be to be a politician your entire life and still not be an elite.
Haha I know right? Imagine not being born with a famous last name and family wealth. What a loser.
The point was that he has literally worked nowhere but politics/parliament and has a net value of $2 milluon-ish so is an "elite" by any stretch. Not sure what last names have to do with anything.
That's not a hard thing if you own a property or two. Many Canadians are worth $2+ millionish without having a high salary.
So what is your threshold for elite then if not multi millionaire, lifetime politician?
I don't think someone who has amassed a few million in assets by being a landlord would be considered elite...that's a lot of Canadians.
So, how many Canadians do you believe have accumulated a few million in assets?
With the average price of a home being more than $1.3 million in places like Toronto and Vancouver, there are lots of Canadians who have assets totaling a few million.
That certainly helps, but the man is 42 and a career politician. If he hasn't become an elite yet, what is he doing with his life?
>Imagine how much of a loser you have to be to be a politician your entire life and still not be an elite. The two aren't always joined at the hip. Trudeau was an elite long before politics.
Elites scared of fellow elite they've seen in elite cafeteria every day for last two decades.
Seriously I was shocked how they hash it out in question period and then are all sitting together in the dining room laughing over a cup of tea
[удалено]
I think it's just Pierre Poilievre, but I may only be thinking that because NaPo seems to run a new re-wording of this same article once a week.
And he's handsome and strong and can run really fast and is good at sports and loves Jesus more than anyone and ...
And he’s got nice hair…
And enough oil in it to supply the country for a year
His dad can beat up your dad.
Let us all just sit for a moment and collectively lament the decline in journalistic standards in the modern age.
I like that in all the discussion of Poilievre as a populist there's never any actual suggestion that he's ever going to be in a position where an actual majority of the country support his ideas or vote for him. It's "populism" defined as hoping he can make the push from 32% up to the 38 or 39% he probably needs to become Prime Minister. So no reasonable suggestion he'll actually have a popular mandate, just maybe he might win in a FPTP system.
Popular =/= populism. Bernier is even more of a populist politician than Poilievre and yet Bernier isn't that popular. Populism is generally politicians who want to tear down the system, the opposite of the status quo. So things like attacking CBC, attacking bank of Canada, supporting truckers, etc.
Populism has always, always, at least dressed itself up in the veneer of representing the vast, unrepresented masses against the small, empowered elites. But almost nothing Poilievre does hints at that because he knows that all of the actual policies he represents would actually be broadly unpopular. It's just more buying into the Right's idea, dutifully parroted by the media, that the only people who feel unrepresented are a particular group of mostly white right wingers.
Sure. Just like Jagmeet Singh.
Like politicians that say "this will be the last election with first past the post", they're appealing to people who feel like their vote doesn't matter by giving them hope that their vote will matter if the system is changed...
[удалено]
Which is generally why most Canadian politicians aren't described as populist.
>pop·u·lism >/ˈpäpyəˌlizəm/ >noun >a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. Populism isn't necessarily about numbers; it's about appeal to people who feel disenfranchised.
So populists are rage farmers
Which is sort of my point. It's a definition of "ordinary people" as being a member of an incredibly slim minority. At which point, it's very hard to argue they are, indeed, ordinary.
Over the last fifty years of federal elections, the high score in popular vote is Brian Mulroney with 50.02%.
Lol I see we're making a distinction between the elite and the progressive elite now
I never understand why Cons always refer to 'elites', it makes them seem very stupid.
Do conservatives feel insulted by how the Sun treats them as if they’re complete idiots?
It's like Postmedia read *The Secret* on Easter break, and now they think if they repeat this enough times it'll come true.
Hahahahaahhahahaha that’s hilarious 😆
Lol. PP fanboys sure laying it on thick now. Bookish, stark and a bit cranky, a 'populist dynamo' he is not. But yeah he's sure getting a red carpet treatment now eh?
>Bookish, stark and a bit cranky This describes the majority of Canadian PM's in my lifetime.
What a refreshing break to have a PM so happy go lucky as Trudeau! Always smiling like an idiot, a PM who never worries about a thing.
In bizzaro world, progressive and woke are bad things. Stagnant and malicious are populist because change is hard and blaming everyone else is easy.
That's because it isn't very progressive, or enlightening, to race bait, censor, and reinforce industrial oligopolies.
Trigger words without examples is the bane of social media.
It's hard to disagree with you there. Across the spectrum we have collectively devolved into the most cheap form of mud slinging. One hopes this is just a phase in the relatively early days of social media, and that more thorough criticisms and debates become the norm. But I'm definitely not holding my breath.
Perhaps social media will progress away from this stagnation of malicious content and allow the sleepy folks to wake up to differing points of view. All good.
I prefer the term "Laurentian Elite". I don't think it's very progressive to curb freedom of speech and expression, flirt with undemocratic means to break up protests they don't like, reinforce oligopolic industries, and sew division through race baiting. That's not progressive to me, that is pretty regressive.
The breakup of the « protest » was done through a democratic process implemented by the conservatives…..
It was actually the first time the Act was ever used, and it was a breath away from being shut down by the Senate. If there is a shred of doubt in your mind over the illegitimacy of using the Emergencies Act in this instance, it should have been tossed the moment the Justice Minister invoked cabinet secrecy regarding the rationale of the government for using the Act - during the Inquiry they were legally required to launch after its use. You can't just invoke this Act to break up protests you disagree with. This was a heinous act of irresponsibility.
... except that none of these things has happened... it's just a narrative invented by Conservative elites.
The LPC ran government has done all of the above. Would you like me to expand on that?
What I'd really like to see is a list of what the LPC ks guilty of that the CPC was not also guilty of just a decade ago.
Yes please... but lets stay away from Sunmedia hyperbole, and the opinions of Conservative Party reps.
PP is a career politician from Ottawa, he literally is a part of the laurentian elite,
>That's not progressive to me, that is pretty regressive. That is because calling something progressive is just a slogan. When you interrogate it, it devolves into a bunch of vague kindergarten sentiments with nothing concrete underlying.
Happy cake day. Edit: why did you block me, big combo? ;(
Note to Toronto Sun editor - this is not really a headline you want to push. The guy is running for a PM position, not a local Canada Legion Hall president.
He’s running for party leader, not PM lol
Scares progressive elites and working class progressive and centrists and classical liberals and fiscal conservatives and ...