CdnFox Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/why-poilievre-is-distancing-himself-corporate-canada The Conservative leader is ditching the traditional business luncheon circuits in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal to speak directly to voters Traditionally, the Conservative Party of Canada, seen as the party closest to business groups, would meet with big banks and various chambers of commerce to get their message through to Canadians, said Dimitri Soudas, who was the director of communications to former prime minister Stephen Harper. Not anymore. Poilievre has been bypassing those events and instead speaking directly to blue-collar workers and union locals to get his message through. “We never did that (before),” said Soudas. On Friday, Poilievre told a full room of CEOs and lobbyists at the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade that he would be doing them no favours if he is elected prime minister and said that they would have to convince not just him, but Canadians, if they want to see policy changes implemented. He also slammed “utterly useless” corporate lobbyists in Ottawa, which he claimed are more interested in dining with cabinet ministers than working for people on the ground, and told corporate leaders to “stop sucking up” to the Liberal government, which he said is “doing the damage to our country.” 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 13 Author Report Share Posted March 13 The truth is it's usually the liberal party who's been the biggest friend to big buisness, but the conservative party (PC's anyway) have always been in there too. PP has very successfully rebranded the CPC as a "party of the people" as corny as the term is. That's why he's stealing ndp votes and union votes as well as PPC voters and those on the right. Trudeau was able to harness his 'star power' and stagemanship effectively but he's only a decent campaigner. And when his socks stopped wowing people he slipped badly in the polls and has done poorly since Harper was just horrible in campains. But he got results - and that kept him getting stronger gov'ts. PP However - This guy is probably one of the best campaigners that Canada has seen - the first Trudeau is the only one i can think of that comes close and even he never swept the country (of course he didn't need to). He is winning in EVERY demographic and in EVERY part of the country other than quebec where amazingly he's in a tight three way race. And i suspect he's actually going to be an effective leader and will actually also get results. Put those two together and this guy could be in power for a while 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 @eyeball please note. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 9 minutes ago, CdnFox said: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/why-poilievre-is-distancing-himself-corporate-canada The Conservative leader is ditching the traditional business luncheon circuits in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal to speak directly to voters Traditionally, the Conservative Party of Canada, seen as the party closest to business groups, would meet with big banks and various chambers of commerce to get their message through to Canadians, said Dimitri Soudas, who was the director of communications to former prime minister Stephen Harper. Not anymore. Poilievre has been bypassing those events and instead speaking directly to blue-collar workers and union locals to get his message through. “We never did that (before),” said Soudas. On Friday, Poilievre told a full room of CEOs and lobbyists at the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade that he would be doing them no favours if he is elected prime minister and said that they would have to convince not just him, but Canadians, if they want to see policy changes implemented. He also slammed “utterly useless” corporate lobbyists in Ottawa, which he claimed are more interested in dining with cabinet ministers than working for people on the ground, and told corporate leaders to “stop sucking up” to the Liberal government, which he said is “doing the damage to our country.” That’s impressive. He sounds like a Stoic. If he can remain his own person, speak his mind, and advocate for prosperity and constitutional rights, he may have a long bright future as PM. The rot sets in when politicians become beholden to special interests and create sinecures for cronies. Trudeau has inflated the size of government by 40% and increased our debt by as much in 8 years. His government is obsessed with creating and imposing expensive government programs on the population when they can’t get the basics of federal government responsibilities right: issuing passports, running the Indigenous file, procuring for the military, etc. Poilievre will have to slash spending, eliminate carbon taxes, and ban DEI/woke shit. If he does these three things alone, he will be successful. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 PP is trying to appeal to the regular voters. It's a smart play. Of course, I don't believe him, because I'm not naive if this is for real then it will take years of similar behavior to build trust because tigers don't typically change their stripes. But I'm confident it's all a sham. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 13 Author Report Share Posted March 13 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said: The rot sets in when politicians become beholden to special interests and create sinecures for cronies. This is true. One of the traditional ways of obtaining electoral victory is to create a coalition of special interest groups. Obama did this very famously with the "intersectional coalition" and that held togetther for his first term. Other gov'ts have done the same - "hey smaller group, some other smaller groups are feeling small too but if you all get behind me we can take over and you'll get what you want" But then to hold that together you have to try to please a bunch of people and that's hard. As you say you get beholden to keeping those groups happy.PP seems to be selling a very honest vision of a better future and that will certainly have wide appeal and be much easier to deliver on. Edited March 13 by CdnFox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 13 Author Report Share Posted March 13 5 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said: PP is trying to appeal to the regular voters. It's a smart play. Of course, I don't believe him, because I'm not naive if this is for real then it will take years of similar behavior to build trust because tigers don't typically change their stripes. But I'm confident it's all a sham. Why? What's he ever done that convinces you that he's not being honest? What's he saying that you find to be either undeliverable or impractical? Or have you just stopped thinking for yourself and go with "all people bad world sucks"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 You don't need to advertise to a market you already own. Advertise to the ones you're trying to fool into buying what you sell. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 2 minutes ago, herbie said: You don't need to advertise to a market you already own. Well... maybe ? I would say it's significant if they're not coordinating with big business... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Well... maybe ? I would say it's significant if they're not coordinating with big business... And I would say optics.... repeat: they're already bought and paid for. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 13 Author Report Share Posted March 13 3 minutes ago, herbie said: And I would say optics.... repeat: they're already bought and paid for. Nobody 'owns' the business market politically and you'd have to be 7 different kinds of stupid to think otherwise. Business doesn't have 'friends' or 'owners' or the like, they have interests. The libs have been more pro 'big business' than the conservatives. So by ignoring that block of support they are signalling a substantial shift in their stance and policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 22 minutes ago, herbie said: And I would say optics.... repeat: they're already bought and paid for. There's one thing I know about people with money. They want the white glove treatment. If Corps aren't being responded to that will alarm them IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: He also slammed “utterly useless” corporate lobbyists in Ottawa, which he claimed are more interested in dining with cabinet ministers than working for people on the ground, and told corporate leaders to “stop sucking up” to the Liberal government, which he said is “doing the damage to our country.” Sounds good. Lets hope he does some serious damage to a government's capacity for being sucked up to. 3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said: PP is trying to appeal to the regular voters. It's a smart play. Of course, I don't believe him, because I'm not naive if this is for real then it will take years of similar behavior to build trust because tigers don't typically change their stripes. But I'm confident it's all a sham. All he'd have to do is tweak the Lobbying Act. He could easily do this within a month. In fact there's nothing stopping him from proposing that in-camera lobbying be outlawed at any time. Force the Liberals to say no and defend the secrecy they and their corporate sponsors/buddies presently enjoy. If he doesn't then I'll be leaning towards concluding its a sham as well. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: Sounds good. Lets hope he does some serious damage to a government's capacity for being sucked up to. JFC could you imagine if we all agreed on something.... I would have to disagree just to keep people hatin' on me.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 13 Author Report Share Posted March 13 10 minutes ago, eyeball said: Sounds good. Lets hope he does some serious damage to a government's capacity for being sucked up to. Well to be clear it sounds like hes' saying "We'll still be being suckered up to by the public, so go convince them and we'll be good with it" Which - i suppose really that's how a democracy is supposed to work. Quote All he'd have to do is tweak the Lobbying Act. He could easily do this within a month. In fact there's nothing stopping him from proposing that in-camera lobbying be outlawed at any time. Force the Liberals to say no and defend the secrecy they and their corporate sponsors/buddies presently enjoy. Well we already know that a) - that's stupid and b) - you don't really believe it, you just virtue signal However back on planet earth he can arrange committees and policy models such that lobbying is no longer effective because you can't target a specific decision maker effectively. You CAN do some things like say 'no meals with lobbiests' and such but as we've seen in the states that really doesn't do much. Quote If he doesn't then I'll be leaning towards concluding its a sham as well. You will 'lean' that way no matter what he does, while hugging your life size justin body pillow and longing for the days of high taxes, gov't handouts and the cbc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: JFC could you imagine if we all agreed on something.... I would have to disagree just to keep people hatin' on me.. I was going to say wait for it but... Too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 13 Author Report Share Posted March 13 16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: JFC could you imagine if we all agreed on something.... I would have to disagree just to keep people hatin' on me.. I promise that won't be necessary (JK! Sort of. Ish. But not really. But kidding! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 4 hours ago, CdnFox said: Not anymore. Poilievre has been bypassing those events and instead speaking directly to blue-collar workers and union locals to get his message through. “We never did that (before),” said Soudas. So you figure PP will tell Canada that Canadians want fewer services, and that their bosses should pay even less tax, like you suggested here? Tax the rich less and no more freebies is the answer people will go for and they'll elect politicians that agree. Your buddy justin has shown the country that taxing the rich is a fast way to go broke.They'll have even more if we stop wasting their money on poor people. The middle class has realized when you tax the 'rich' its the middle class that suffer and they're done with that. 17 minutes ago, CdnFox said: I promise that won't be necessary (JK! Sort of. Ish. But not really. But kidding! ) Says the guy who'll now spend the rest of the day derailing his own thread. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 56 minutes ago, eyeball said: I was going to say wait for it but... Too late. I'm taking my chips and cashing out of this one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 13 Author Report Share Posted March 13 52 minutes ago, eyeball said: So you figure PP will tell Canada that Canadians want fewer services, and that their bosses should pay even less tax, like you suggested here? Yep - for example the cbc - get rid of it. You may have heard him speak on that before. Quote Says the guy who'll now spend the rest of the day derailing his own thread. LOL - it sounds stupid when moonbox says it - and even stupider when you try to pull it over a joke Gee - did i touch a nerve perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 3 hours ago, herbie said: And I would say optics.... repeat: they're already bought and paid for. With what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 14 Report Share Posted March 14 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: Yep - for example the cbc - get rid of it. You may have heard him speak on that before. Only outside of Quebec...he's carved it out for some special reason - self-interest would be my guess. Probably lobbied by a union at a private luncheon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted March 14 Author Report Share Posted March 14 27 minutes ago, eyeball said: Only outside of Quebec...he's carved it out for some special reason - self-interest would be my guess. Probably lobbied by a union at a private luncheon. No he says it in quebec as well. But - there is one french show on cbc quebec that is unique and he's said he'll keep that alive. But lets also remember that he's not planning to shut down the cbc - just take their gov't owned assets away and stop funding them. IF the public wants to privately support them they'll still be around of course. (kinda got this feeling that the lefties won't think the cbc is all that worth it if it comes out of their pockets but hey, Their call ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 14 Report Share Posted March 14 59 minutes ago, CdnFox said: No he says it in quebec as well. But - there is one french show on cbc quebec that is unique and he's said he'll keep that alive. How? Put the PMO in charge of the CBC's programming apparently. LMAO! It is the corporation's board of directors that determines how the funding it receives is spent. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-defund-cbc-change-law-1.6810434 "I'm not sure politicians really want to go down the [road of] ... 'We are going to give francophones better service with public money than we're going to give anglophones,"' he said. Menzies added that while he believes changes should be made to the CBC, "it's a lot more complicated than people think." "Preferring one piece of it over another piece, particularly linguistically, I think that opens a door you probably don't really want to open." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted March 14 Report Share Posted March 14 (edited) 7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: JFC could you imagine if we all agreed on something.... I would have to disagree just to keep people hatin' on me.. Don't worry Michael, if people don't hate on you it means you're probably doing it wrong. Even Jesus and Abe Lincoln and Gandhi and MLK had haters. In fact, they were all murdered by their haters now that I think about it. Trump and Jordan Peterson are also loved and hated by many. So I guess who is right morally is all in the eye of the beholder. A world where we all agree means nobody is thinking, just complying. Edited March 14 by Moonlight Graham 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.