Minister of Middle Class Prosperity

Image from: Sumthincute. "Royal Jewels in Hats".


"Minister of Middle Class Prosperity"

New Canadian Government Job Category

Only a self-styled member of the "upper class" could have dreamed up that one, unwittingly demonstrating that true "class" is not about wealth -- regardless of income (she's being paid by Canadian tax payers as much as Prince Andrew gets from British taxpayers) no matter that she wears a string of pearls in common with certain other prominent female parliamentarians and British royals. 

Not very impressed am I, nor is a Calgary Herald columnist:

Calgary Herald Dec 23/19-  Chris Nelson: Trudeau Liberals are bottom of every class

I must say, Chris Nelson is the most cogent, most clear-eyed and amusing writer I've read in quite a while:

• That whole “putting people in boxes” thing, where chips grow relentlessly on shoulders, aitches are dropped or re-hitched and what your father did for a living becomes key in getting that job or place at college.
• Hallelujah for Canada, where such dreadful, self-limiting stuff doesn’t matter. We’ve enough challenges battling racism and sexism without adding class to the divisive mix. Only an idiot would do such a thing.
• Oh, hello. It seems the federal Liberals have got themselves a new minister of middle-class prosperity and now won’t stop yakking about this new political food group they’ve discovered.
• Seriously, whenever you think the bottom is reached in sheer fluffery and silliness, then Justin Trudeau’s lot descends yet further.

Right on! When I first saw the blurbs about Canada's new "Minister of the Middle Class" I almost gagged. Oh gawd, did Trudeau intend that as his Christmas Gift to Canada? What a dork!

But it was the jolly season, eh?  So I put it out of my mind.  Besides, it's embarrassing that the shiny new Minister couldn't describe what Canada's Middle Class actually is, except to mutter that they send their kids to hockey!

Oh-h-h,, so maybe if they get really good at hockey they can go and play for American teams for huge bucks and I guess that could make them upper middle class, but certainly never upper class because, while you can be down at the heel and still be upper class, being newly up at the heel, in other words "nouveau riche", doesn't cut it.

See, it's old money that puts one in the upper class category. An oligarch, like George Soros for instance, is merely stinking rich. Justin Trudeau's money came from his entrepreneurial grandfather so he's merely stinking rich also, but that doesn't stop him from ranking tax payers while ignoring that the truly stinking rich can weasel out of paying any taxes at all.

The Washington Post (6/30/19), quoted here, warns:

•  ... “it’s all too likely that a wealth tax would bring in less revenue than advocates anticipate, in part because millionaires can afford the best accountants and lawyers.”

Chrystia Freeland, in her book "Plutocrats", states that "we are mesmerized" (page 42) by the filthy rich, but I think she must be using the royal "we" since it's she who is enamoured of the wealthy ones, and desirous that the whole world should know that she and Soros are "close friends" despite that his personal rise, and that of others of his ilk, will be the "fall of everyone else".

Not very classy of her, despite her string of pearls. Nor clever, because it causes one to consider who's really pulling her strings and how that's going to affect Canada in the long run, especially now that she's Minister of Everything.

Freeland includes Soros in her list of "plutocrats": people who exercise power by virtue of wealth. Regardless, Freeland belongs to no class, nor does Soros, literally. No amount of money will make one "upper class"; one has to descend from it not ascend to it, big bucks or not.

Old money trumps new money. Soros' sons are not upper class, nor will their kids be, though their kids' kids might be considered so if they marry into appropriate families.  But will anyone care by then?  I don't care what they call him now, and I'm sure I'm not alone.  I just don't like to think he's a master puppeteer, especially since he is quoted as saying he has "very great hopes for Canada."

Even the British monarchy has all but worn out its welcome:

DailyMail: Why I fear the monarchy will die with the Queen

• A belief in the long-term security of the throne could be badly misplaced. For it is possible that the Queen’s longevity and fidelity may disguise much deeper misgivings about the role of the monarchy in the 21st century.
• After all, admiration for the present incumbent does not necessarily translate into support for the institution itself.

What willing sheep her "subjects" are. See antonyms of "upper class", and then face it: if you're not upper you're nothing.  And that goes double for the newly filthy rich.

Well ... maybe, maybe not. There's class and then there's CLASS. You can be an oligarch or a royal and possess no CLASS whatsover, judging by the total lack of embarrassment over idiotic royal women's hats, and the deliberate exaggeration of that same strange proclivity at the Royal Ascot races. 

Not to mention the obtuse ickiness of Prince Andrew and the buffoonity of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Anyway, there's no such thing as "Canada's "middle class". But, if there were, could hockey actually be a criterion? And would professional hockey players be middle middle, upper middle, or lower middle class depending on the level of skill achieved?

At least hockey players wear hats that have a useful function.