The Liberal mailing list sent this an hour or two ago. “From” Mark Carney:
I am deeply honoured to be our next Liberal leader – and I’m ready to get to work.
…
We’re going to build the fastest-growing economy in the G7.
We’ll cut taxes that divide us and put money back into your pockets.
We’ll invest in health care, seniors, and affordable child care.
We’ll take bold action on climate, and we’ll protect Canadian workers from Trump’s tariffs.
I really hope that ol affordability crisis just slipped his mind. Tax cuts are fine (even if it’s coded language for dropping the carbon tax), but groceries are still crazy expensive and housing is still hard to come by.
You must log in or register to comment.
No offence to you Canadians, but goddamn your politicians are fuuucked.
Neoliberal politics will be the doom of us all.
Reminder of the Liberal’s record on proportional representation: “Liberals never wanted to “make every vote count.”… Electoral reform has become a bonbon offered at election. As far back as 1919, Liberals have campaigned on the promise of proportional representation”
Mark Carney’s position on electoral reform: “open”. However…
- He’s an economist, and the mathematics pairs quite nicely with the mathematics of electoral systems.
- His public persona is that he is intelligent. But when asked specifically about electoral reform and proportional representation, he says he’s uncertain and open to exploring options? Why would someone as smart as him be uncertain about ensuring every vote counts?
But when asked specifically about electoral reform and proportional representation, he says he’s uncertain and open to exploring options? Why would someone as smart as him be uncertain about ensuring every vote counts?
He’s trying to play both sides: if he says no, then he alienates NDP and other non-Libs; if he says yes, then he alienates those who like the current system or are afraid of change.
You’re bang on! Instead of playing both sides, how about we just play the side of democracy: !fairvote@lemmy.ca
With all due respect, election reform is at the bottom of the list of my priorities as a voter.
I would have liked changed, but no two official parties agree on what the solution is. Trudeau tried it and that’s why he didn’t do it.
Doing this again and making it a big issue is just going to go exactly the same.
But with proportional representation, you’d be able to vote in a government that is able to address your priorities effectively…
In a democracy, the ultimate power should be vested in its citizens. I’m not making it a big issue, it is inherently a big issue.
If he’s cutting taxes, how will he fund health care etc?
As far as I know, he’s only planning on cutting the carbon tax (“taxes that divide us”). The carbon tax doesn’t fund health care.
He’s sorta kinda promising tax cuts, if we’re good:
A Mark Carney-led government’s fiscal policy will focus first on reining in wasteful and ineffective government spending, creating room for personal income tax cuts so that Canadians can keep more of their hard-earned money and better cope with the higher cost of living.
We will slow the growth of government spending, initially cap the size of the public service, and review our spending with an emphasis on outcomes and technology to reduce inefficiencies. By leveraging AI and machine learning to boost productivity and cut costs across government, we will build a highly competitive, technology-enabled public service focused on delivering for Canadians and ensuring funds are allocated where they best serve Canadians.
So lay people off and use technology that tells you to use glue to keep cheese on pizza?
/s
Because Trudeau already guaranteed extended healthcare funding for every province.
He is a new politician you cannot expect him to have the lies figured out, his banker lies do not transfer over well.
This is the appropriate level of cynicism - Carney hasn’t proven himself. We want him to be good, because we want him to be better than Poilievre, but he hasn’t shown us that yet.
because we want him to be better than Poilievre
Or at least seem better than Poilievre to the people who might vote conservative.
