Quebec’s ‘Tea Party’ is born

[Shwa]

Obviously the Tea Party movement is this weeks expose focus for the Star, LOL:

Is the U.S. Tea Party movement seeping into Tim Horton’s territory, Canada?

OK, OK, its all about the Timmies, even though the peerless leaders do not drink the coffee. But this is a very interesting quote:

Certainly some would like to see it that way. A recent spate of attention has shone the light on Tea Party wannabes here in Canada. There's a Facebook group, the Tea Party Movement of Canada, spearheaded by a determinedly right-wing fellow in London, Ont., former political science student Andrew Lawton. It has about 1,400 members and high hopes for rallies in Toronto and other cities in the near future.

It's all about bringing the value of freedom to Canada, says Lawton, who also proudly calls himself a Conservative Party member, even if he doesn't like the way it's been spending lately.

A "determinedly right-wing fellow from London, Ont.??" That sounds like... Andrew... is that you Shady?

[August1991]

From your link, Shwa:

The United States has its Tea Party movement; Canada has its Tim Hortons. What's bubbling in the political kettle here, so to speak, is populism, of two very different but related sorts.

A simmering segment of the American population has chosen tea to symbolize its demand for government to stay out of people's lives. A less hot segment of the Canadian population sees Tim Hortons as a way of saying “Keep politics out of my face.”

What's yet to be seen is whether all this coffee symbolism in Canada is a portent of stronger, Tea Party-like sentiment emerging in the electorate.

Susan Delacourt puts this down to populism. I have to agree. (I'll ignore her weak attempt to distinguish Canada from the US on this issue.)

-----

You will soon see the Right (ie. Mark Steyn) start talking about de Tocqueville and how democracy and extending the right-to-vote to almost everyone has turned modern democracies into welfare States. Here's their argument: There are more poor people than rich people and so if majority rules, the poor will vote to steal from the rich.

Hence, Obamacare.

I think Delacourt's article touches a better point. To steal from the rich and give to the poor, we require honest politicians. Poor people (Tea Partiers, Tim Horton's customers) understand/believe that voting for politicians who tax the rich - just makes the politicians richer.

IOW, I don't know if Delacourt understands the depth of cynicsm among ordinary people.

Edited September 12, 2010 by August1991

[jbg]

Actually, that doesn't sound much like the Tea Party at all. The Tea Party in America is focused primarily on economic issues, not social.

Our tea party movement is fed by a primal scream "enough already" when it comes to BOTH taxes and government intrusion.

[bloodyminded]

I think Delacourt's article touches a better point. To steal from the rich and give to the poor, we require honest politicians. Poor people (Tea Partiers, Tim Horton's customers) understand/believe that voting for politicians who tax the rich - just makes the politicians richer.

The Tea Partiers are not by and large "poor people."

[Shwa]

The Tea Partiers are not by and large "poor people."

Neither are Timmies customers judging by all the nice rides in their drive-through line-ups.

[bloodyminded]

Neither are Timmies customers judging by all the nice rides in their drive-through line-ups.

Yeah, that whole Timmy's theme is bizarre to me. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here in NB, it seems like everybody goes to Timmy's; and no one ever sees it as somehow a place for "working class joes," while the liberal elites...I dunno..."sip lattees," or whatever other caricature one wishes to invoke. The whole paradigm is nonsense.

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah, that whole Timmy's theme is bizarre to me. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here in NB, it seems like everybody goes to Timmy's; and no one ever sees it as somehow a place for "working class joes," while the liberal elites...I dunno..."sip lattees," or whatever other caricature one wishes to invoke. The whole paradigm is nonsense.

If I may also point out that the quality of their products and service has deteriorated over the past 10 years. As a result, I for one have defected to Starbucks & Second Cup.

Blind brand loyalty is for dummies and/or Leafs fans.

[bloodyminded]

If I may also point out that the quality of their products and service has deteriorated over the past 10 years. As a result, I for one have defected to Starbucks & Second Cup.

Blind brand loyalty is for dummies and/or Leafs fans.

That's right; I dropped the Leafs many years ago.

Brand loyalty is a remarkably abusrd phenomenon (and also is direct opposition to vaunted free market/capitalism prtinciples).

But then, so is advertising/marketing itself: which is the genesis of "brand loyalty" in the first place. Because the theory (which is occasionally even true) is that of "informed consumers making educated choices."

The advertising industry spends multi-billions a year trying to subvert this principle. Indeed, how could they not?

[kimmy]

Brand loyalty is a remarkably abusrd phenomenon (and also is direct opposition to vaunted free market/capitalism prtinciples).

Brand loyalty arises when a consumer finds a product that they like and becomes confident that the manufacturer can provide that level of satisfaction consistently.

If I as a consumer feel that a manufacturer consistently provides a higher quality product, or a product more suited to my tastes, than its competitors, then it justifies additional expense on my part to choose that product over its competitors; there's nothing opposing free-market principles about it.

Of course, whether a consumer is accurate in assigning additional value to a brand they're happy with is often pretty doubtful.

-k

[kimmy]

Ok....

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2009-summary/permanent/01.asp

I will never, ever say MikeDavid00 is right about anything.

However, I *will* say that your figures show that Wild Bill is pretty much correct: if you take a look at the figures in your link, you'll notice that of the 150,000 immigrants in the "economic" class, about 90,000 are listed as "spouses and dependents". Of the 250,000 immigrants stated there, only about 60,000 are the people who were selected to come here as workers that Canada needs.

-k

[bloodyminded]

Brand loyalty arises when a consumer finds a product that they like and becomes confident that the manufacturer can provide that level of satisfaction consistently.

If I as a consumer feel that a manufacturer consistently provides a higher quality product, or a product more suited to my tastes, than its competitors, then it justifies additional expense on my part to choose that product over its competitors; there's nothing opposing free-market principles about it.

Of course, whether a consumer is accurate in assigning additional value to a brand they're happy with is often pretty doubtful.

-k

I'm not talking about brand preference. That makes perfect sense. I prefer Coke to Pepsi, have imbibed both of them about a zillion times, so that's my taste; i know for sure which one tastes better to me.

But I'm not "loyal"...that word has serious connotations. I would drop Coke in favour of something else in a second, without a twinge of regret, if I found I preferred something else. So there's no loyalty, at all.

"Brand loyalty" is about habit, and is undergirded by marketing, which is psycologically astute enough to know how to ply their product through emotional responses, which often have literally nothing to do with the particular product.

Brand loyalty is to drink Coke because...that's what I drink. Because it's "my" product.

Edited September 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Smallc]

However, I *will* say that your figures show that Wild Bill is pretty much correct: if you take a look at the figures in your link, you'll notice that of the 150,000 immigrants in the "economic" class, about 90,000 are listed as "spouses and dependents".

That assumes that the spouses and dependents don't work. That's a pretty bad assumption for the most part.

[Shwa]

That assumes that the spouses and dependents don't work. That's a pretty bad assumption for the most part.

Exactly. And it also presumes that those in the family class are not working or even professionals in one capacity or another especially in light of the employment rates for immigrants which are not quite the 70% that is suggested.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Shwa

[grainfedprairieboy]

Wasn't the ADQ supposed to be a right-wing party ? Arent' they still around ?

The ADQ, or what is 'left' of it (no pun intended); is about as rightwing as Jack Layton. The only thing that would be unique to Quebec politics is a party whose raison d'etre didn't revolve around the lunacy of attempting to hold Ottawa accountable for virtually every provincial issue with an expectation that Albertans must suave national transgressions through transfer payments.

How much one blames Ottawa and expects Alberta to pay for it is the barometer for determining right from left in Quebec.

Time will tell I suppose.

[CANADIEN]

The ADQ, or what is 'left' of it (no pun intended); is about as rightwing as Jack Layton. The only thing that would be unique to Quebec politics is a party whose raison d'etre didn't revolve around the lunacy of attempting to hold Ottawa accountable for virtually every provincial issue with an expectation that Albertans must suave national transgressions through transfer payments.

How much one blames Ottawa and expects Alberta to pay for it is the barometer for determining right from left in Quebec.

Time will tell I suppose.

ADQ about as right-wing as Layton? Really?

I didn't know the NDP platform included scaling back the number of civil servants, more private health care, rising university tuitions, lower taxes, school vouchers or flat rate taxation

Edited October 13, 2010 by CANADIEN

[grainfedprairieboy]

ADQ about as right-wing as Layton? Really?

I didn't know the NDP platform included scaling back the number of civil servants, more private health care, rising university tuitions, lower taxes, school vouchers or flat rate taxation

Then clearly you missed the results of recent NDP governments in Ontario and BC whose platforms essentially mirrored their federal brethren and whose actions personified your statement. Additionally, investigate the real voting record of the ADQ and convince me they are anything other then left wing....at least by my centrist Western standards:)

[CANADIEN]

Then clearly you missed the results of recent NDP governments in Ontario and BC whose platforms essentially mirrored their federal brethren and whose actions personified your statement. Additionally, investigate the real voting record of the ADQ and convince me they are anything other then left wing....at least by my centrist Western standards:)

Indeed, I missed all those privatisations and tax cuts done by the NDP when they were in powers about 20 years ago.

More seriously, if you, unlike about any political commentator who has written about them, thinkl that the ADQ is left-wing, methink it's up to YOU to bring their voting patterns to the table.

[bloodyminded]

Then clearly you missed the results of recent NDP governments in Ontario and BC whose platforms essentially mirrored their federal brethren and whose actions personified your statement. Additionally, investigate the real voting record of the ADQ and convince me they are anything other then left wing....at least by my centrist Western standards:)

Ah...Quebec and Alberta, the two provinces convinced that the very parameters of all politics and all ideology is to be determined by their stance....

[Molly]

I find (usually right wing) self-identification as 'centrist' pretty amusing. Yes, yes indeedy, I believe that each individual is the centre of his own universe, but politics is subject to a different standard of measurement.

Atilla the Hun was not politically 'centrist'.

[The_Squid]

Each gov't worker workers will cost the tax payer (private sector worker) between 3 million and 11 million dollars through their lifetime.

The low-end of your scale would mean that the AVERAGE wage of a gov't worker in Quebec is $100,000 per year (for a 30 year career). This is after-tax dollars, which would go back to the gov't, so the actual wage you are talking about is closer to $150,000 per year for 30 years on average. And this is your minimum cost to taxpayers for each and every of the lowest paid gov't worker.

Your high-end would be a average wage of $367,000 for the 30 years of this Quebec public servant.

What a load of crap. Your numbers are ridiculously inflated and have no basis in reality.

[Michael Hardner]

What a load of crap. Your numbers are ridiculously inflated and have no basis in reality.

I suppose that somebody has to point out the obvious. Thanks for helping us out.