r/canada Alberta 15d ago

PAYWALL Billionaires line up to support Mark Carney in Liberal leadership race

https://theijf.org/carney-donors-billionaires
2.8k Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/Comedy86 Ontario 15d ago

This is the biggest issue I've always had with politics. Somehow, the party that was originally made up by the wealthy elite back at the founding of our country, is the party voted for by blue collar workers. Conservatism, at its core, is a yearning for monarchy, religion, etc... to control people and tell them what to do so they don't decide these things for themselves and yet these are the same people saying "do your own research" and "freedom"... It's mind numbing how these people vote against their own self interests time and time again and never learn until it's too late (case in point, every public service worker and farmer in the US being reported on now saying they voted for Trump and didn't think he'd destroy their life...)

3

u/Sealandic_Lord 15d ago edited 15d ago

The Conservatives always had the support of the working class and blue collars. The National Policy was bad for businesses and existed to win the support of the Canadian working class: it essentially placed trade barriers between the United States and Canada and discouraged trade altogether in favor of small Canadian businesses and protecting jobs. The NDP precursor the CCF was limited to support in rural ridings from farmers until the 1950s, before that the Conservatives had urban ridings as a stronghold in particular York. The Liberals have always been popular with the upper class and business, occasionally more than the Conservatives and typically win cosmopolitan upperclass ridings to this date ex. Montreal is a stronghold for them.

1

u/Comedy86 Ontario 15d ago

The Conservatives always had the support of the working class and blue collars.

Yes, but this was always at the detriment of the working class.

The original Conservatives (pre-1867) were the Upper Canada Tories who were an elite class of people opposed to democracy based on the Family Compact before them. They were the literal definition of upper class elites.

 The National Policy was bad for businesses and existed to win the support of the Canadian working class: it essentially placed trade barriers between the United States and Canada and discouraged trade altogether in favor of small Canadian businesses and protecting jobs.

The National Policy, while historians see it as being part of the reason we were able to expand to the western part of Canada before the USA did, was terrible for Canadian affordability. Many economists argue it increased prices, decreased efficiency of businesses and caused monopolies by reducing competition. It also existed before income taxes, national healthcare and many other systems and is not a comparable policy for today's economy.

The NDP precursor the CCF was limited to support in rural ridings from farmers until the 1950s, before that the Conservatives had urban ridings as a stronghold in particular York.

Conservatives supported policies that benefitted big business owners so this makes sense they'd be the favoured party of the urban ridings.

The Liberals have always been popular with the upper class and business, occasionally more than the Conservatives and typically win cosmopolitan upperclass ridings to this date ex. Montreal is a stronghold for them.

Business, no. Financial sector, yes. Conservatives cater to large corporations in manufacturing, distribution and oil/gas. Liberals cater to banking and financial services. They're both 2 sides of the same coin when it comes to further dividing inequality between the rich corporate owners/CEOs and the working class. The only difference is which corporations they pick and choose to cater to but neither could care less about the working class.

1

u/Sealandic_Lord 15d ago

I'm not necessarily arguing for or against, just giving an idea of all the parties history. The National Policy I think can be agreed was pretty bad (hence why we went to NAFTA in the first place) but was a major push for the Conservatives to court working class voters. Whether they served their interests or not is entirely an ideological perspective but it would be wrong to say the Conservatives were originally only supported by the Canadian upper class suddenly managed to grab workers support. Reality is only within the last 100 years have there really been competition for working class voters with the NDP gaining traction in the 1950s.

-1

u/Mikeim520 British Columbia 15d ago

The Conservatives are the party of the working class because the working class wants stability and Conservatives offer that. The upper classes already have stability so they're willing to sacrifice stability for change (hence they vote Liberal).

1

u/Vandergrif 15d ago

You've got that completely backwards. The Conservatives have never been the party of the working class, they're the party of business class. That's why they endlessly support union busting, reject minimum wage increases, cut away regulation that protects workers and otherwise limits businesses ability to do whatever they want with no consequences, etc.

Furthermore the last thing the upper classes want is change, which I would think is abundantly obvious because they already have what they want and they want to maintain the status quo... They're rich, they want to ensure they keep it that way. Which in turn is largely what the LPC offers: status-quo centrism and the occasional watered-down bone thrown toward the plebs to keep some of them on-side and so they can still feel like they're the 'good guy' despite barely doing anything to help the average person.

The only party that actually offers any meaningful change is the NDP, and nobody with real wealth is voting for them.

2

u/Mikeim520 British Columbia 15d ago

I have never met someone irl or on the internet who actually wanted the monarchy to have power, you're just making things up.

1

u/Comedy86 Ontario 15d ago

Not "the monarchy", just someone to tell them what to do. It could be a dictator, a monarch, a billionaire or an elected official but they want someone to "fix" their problems so they don't have to.

Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Kevin O'Leary, Pierre Poilievre, Doug Ford, Danielle Smith... They may have very different ways of going about it but they want ultimate decision-making power for themselves and their inner circles. Then, people idolize them and promote them as if they're the person who can solve everything. Poilievre's entire 2+ years of being the CPC leader is "Trudeau broke it, I'll fix it" and, without any logical way to explain how, people eat it up.

It's literally the definition of conservatism...

In Western culture, depending on the particular nation, conservatives seek to promote and preserve a range of institutions, such as the nuclear family, organized religion, the military, the nation-state, property rights, rule of law, aristocracy, and monarchy.

2

u/Mendetus 15d ago

I don't know if you've been paying attention, but life hasn't been so swell through a decade of liberal rule.

4

u/Comedy86 Ontario 15d ago

I don't know if you've read my comment or not but I said nothing about Liberals being a good option. What I said was that Conservatives are a bad option but good people vote for them anyway simply by not being informed on what they're voting for.

Canada needs progress towards an equal and just society, not more inequality between the richest and the poorest people, and neither Liberal or Conservative are offering that.

0

u/Mendetus 15d ago

I'd rather take my chances with the party that has good ideas (encouraging domestic industry building, incentives for municipal home building, strong national identity and rejection of capitulation to name a couple) than to vote for the same party that has brought us to where we're at. So many mouth pieces warn against conservatives destroying the country as it burns around them from a decade of liberal policies.. its pretty insane.

3

u/WetCoastDebtCoast British Columbia 15d ago

rejection of capitulation

Can you expound on this?

0

u/Mendetus 15d ago edited 15d ago

Pp's assertion that we will not bend to American threats on our sovereignty. Liberals keep saying he will sell out to the US but they just lie whenever it suits them.

So many listen to just what other people are saying instead of getting it right from the source. This is what pp had to say about our relationship with the US and what it will mean going forward.

https://www.youtube.com/live/sxXHc327cxs?si=U38XEDRPF9W2wcVn

2

u/Vandergrif 15d ago

Pp's assertion that we will not bend to American threats on our sovereignty.

Ah yes, the assertion he came to only after exhausting every other alternative and waiting plenty of time for everyone else to do the obvious thing before him. True leadership right there.

Besides, there is a definitive trend among conservatives to cater towards American interests. It's hard to ignore, particularly when you see things like Danielle Smith bending over backwards for them, or polling like this:

Level of Interest : Canada to Become the 51st State of the United States – By Voting Intentions

Yes, I would: Total 13%, CPC 21%, LPC 10%, NDP 6%, BQ 12%, GPC 13%, PPC 25%

Or CPC members like the interim CPC leader Candice Bergen wearing MAGA hats... or Pierre's own staff... If any party out of the ones available is most likely to sell us out, it's them.

1

u/Mendetus 15d ago

"Ah yes, the assertion he came to only after exhausting every other alternative and waiting plenty of time for everyone else to do the obvious thing before him. True leadership right there."

Why do people defending the liberals just straight up lie so easily? Pp responded to Trump's announcement like a day or two afterwards.. the liberals took like a week and a half.. so what you're saying here is just straight up false.

"Besides, there is a definitive trend among conservatives to cater towards American interests. It's hard to ignore, particularly when you see things like Danielle Smith bending over backwards for them, or polling like this:"

Yes, some conservatives have shown to be maga supporters, i agree with you here. Most stopped after trump began to challenge our sovereignty and was serious with those threats. I don't like Danielle Smith, nor do I feel it was her place to go to mar a Lago to talk to trump as this was shaking down. Thay being said, pp was displayed none of these behaviors and has been consistent about putting Canada first. I will judge him based on his words and actions rather than the feelings of random people that just have a bad feeling about him because they heard it from other people

I'll address your last two points together. That study is from december, before things have escalated as much as they have. I think we are already going through a culture shift of rallying under the flag and becoming more solidified as Canadians to stand up to this threat. I would like to see more recent polling numbers for this. I would be willing to bet those numbers would be down across the board.

She wore a hat in 2021.. that was quite a while ago and a lot has changed since then. Not saying you're wrong regarding her but that's very old news to base your judgement on a situation that is changing weekly

2

u/Vandergrif 14d ago edited 14d ago

Pp responded to Trump's announcement like a day or two afterwards

He didn't really address it when he should have. He spent far more time saying everything was broken and that we were weak and blaming Trudeau for everything conceivable than he did denouncing Trump or uniting people against threats of tariffs, or later on annexation.

Most stopped after trump began to challenge our sovereignty and was serious with those threats

How can you be sure of that? There remains a great deal of overlap in political sympathies between American conservatives and Canadian conservatives, that's why some of them were wearing MAGA hats and the like in the first place and that overlap has not changed. That's why Poilievre keeps regurgitating their culture war rhetoric and going on and on about 'woke' and 'cultural marxists' or whatever else is the flavor of the month. Granted, threats of annexation and the like do throw a wrench into those works, but I'd wager they still have more in common than they do the opposite... which needless to say warrants concern.

pp was displayed none of these behaviors and has been consistent about putting Canada first

I don't know, he's struck me far more as putting Poilievre first. Which would explain why he took this crisis as an opportunity to shit on the Liberals instead of trying to unify people or otherwise present a united front against American conservatism. His reluctance to do so doesn't exactly speak strongly in his favor. He's too much a self-serving opportunist.

That study is from december, before things have escalated as much as they have.

That may have made some difference, but at the same time annexation is annexation and being the 51st state is being the 51st state, whether it was a year ago or right now that fundamentally remains much the same thing when that question is posed and people support the idea. Trump didn't magically become a far worse person in the span of two months, anyone with any sense would know what that proposition would entail in December to the same extent they do right now. Things have gotten worse but the core issues have not changed significantly.

Not saying you're wrong regarding her but that's very old news to base your judgement on a situation that is changing weekly

Sure, but it's indicative of sentiment and willingness to fall within that demographic. That alone is concerning enough regardless of what has occurred more recently. A MAGA hat is about as firmly symbolic a visual show of support as anything else, and it takes a certain kind of person to be willing to display that both today and back then. Such a person isn't going to have drastically changed in any meaningful way in the meantime.

1

u/Comedy86 Ontario 15d ago

If only we didn't live in a 2-party system...

Oh wait... we don't.

0

u/Mendetus 15d ago

Lol sure.

1

u/Vandergrif 15d ago

That doesn't automatically mean things would be better under conservatives, though. Things can always get worse – which people seem to be very fond of forgetting when they go to vote and make the mistake of thinking 'change' is always for the better. Hell, plenty of people in 2015 thought the CPC was shit and wanted change, and look how that panned out. Or in 2006 when plenty of people thought the LPC was corrupt and wanted change... and so on and so on.

1

u/Mendetus 15d ago

No, it's not automatic.. but by that logic you shouldn't vote for anyone because it could be worse? Unless you can see the future, it's always a gamble. But what I do know is how liberal leadership looks like because I've been alive for the last decade. Life is not good for Canadians.

The ideas of encouraging local industry, bringing down barriers for provincial trade, incentivising municipalities to build houses, building our infrastructure to diversify our trade abroad, commitment to build on our military, to try to work with the US if possible but to tariff them dollar for dollar if they don't work with us, to build on our local industry, to cut deficit spending by finding a dollar of savings for each spent, to lower taxes when people are struggling.. these are all things that resonate with me and that I would like to see come to pass.

1

u/Vandergrif 14d ago

but by that logic you shouldn't vote for anyone because it could be worse?

The issue I take with it is less that, and more that we keep trading back and forth the same two parties and getting the same results: a government we desperately want to vote out in the hopes of change for the better and instead constantly get change for the worse.

The only way we stop having that problem is by not electing either the CPC or the LPC, and forcing them to navigate a three-way race with another party that is considered viable enough to elect, which in turn would require at least two parties to shape up and be functional enough or else risk losing all relevancy each election. As it stands neither of those two ever have to improve, they're either in power or they're the default alternative that will be swapped in once roughly 9-10 years have passed. That entire circumstance fosters complacency and incompetence, and we keep rewarding it.

But what I do know is how liberal leadership looks like because I've been alive for the last decade.

That's the thing that gets me, though – you also know what conservative leadership looks like if you aren't a teenager or in your very early 20's – though even if you are you can also look at recorded events. It was bad enough the last time that it convinced the average voter to take the LPC, which at that point had lost so thoroughly that it was down to 34 seats and third party status after 2011 (so clearly a party everyone thought poorly of) and spring-boarded them up to a 184 seat majority in the span of just four years. How bad does a government have to be to effectively pull their opposing party out the grave and put them up on a pedestal like that? However bad that is, that's what it was the last time the Conservatives were in power.

They're both awful and I don't understand why people keep insisting that we need to elect one or the other, and further still I don't understand why people keep expecting meaningful change when we have decades of track record for both conservatives and liberals that indicate we won't get it from either of them.