Too much academic, theoretical blather. I don’t want the proto fascist, Trump aligned PP to win. I don’t want the NDP rewarded for the dismantling of unified opposition. I want a calm, able, likeable, strong person to lead the ‘natural’ political party of Canada to victory. I’m with Carney.
If you're with Carney then you're against the working class. Prove me wrong by explaining step-by-step how Carney Liberals will increase median income in Canada (adjusted for inflation).
1. Adjusting capital tax rate to make Canada more attractive for investment.
2. Cushioning the economic impact of tariffs on taxpayers by adjusting the EU rates.
3. Providing a calm, strong, experienced voice as counterpoint to the American chaos.
4. Balancing tax income with extraordinary circumstances requiring extraordinary expenses.
PP is running his party into an election with the same attack, populist strategy as Trump down south. This does not prepare the ground for effective resistance.
1. Capital gains tax rate has no statistical correlation with economic growth or real median income.
2. "Cushioning" is too broad a term and therefore meaningless.
3. "Calm strong, experienced voice" that has no plan to raise real median wages for workers and restore food & housing affordability ratios is a useless voice. Working class has no need for such useless voices.
4. Another statement that does not answer my original question.
You proved my point for me that Carney has no plan to raise the real median wages of the working class and restore their purchasing power. In contrast the NDP will bring sectoral bargaining, card check certification, ensure anti scab remains and strengthen the collective bargaining rights of workers. More than happy to answer any specific questions you may have on fiscal & monetary policy. Cheers.
have you any remote idea how dated, boring, discredited and damaging to your own cause your ‘class warfare’ platform is? There is one system as evil as fascism - communism. Of, forgot: you are an irrelevant idiot. Happy Easter!
This 5th grader doesn’t have the time or inclination to sort through the academic nuances of why a candidate does not exhibit the ideal profile of our future leader. This happened in the US where everybody had some problem with something Harris said or did that revealed her flaws. In the meantime, the empire was being set alight by people who either never participate in the democratic echochamber or seize on the divisions and faults in our arguments as evidence of weakness. So. Keep it simple, direct, moral and effective. That is my point.
Why does all public thinking have to take the form of four-word "direct, moral and effective" slogans? What does "effective" even mean here? That is a nonsensical retort
Also LOL if you think the reason Harris lost was because of think pieces like this. And not, you know, being silent on genocide and her platform offering nothing new to working class americans (destroying the federal jobs program, abandoning anti-fracking stance etc etc etc)
Right. And there we have it. You don’t see how you are proving my point here? All of those evil aspects of her pounded by the right and far left have increased her vulnerability. And those clever commentators on the “woke” left have traded a candidate who failed them in some ways for a candidate who fails them in all ways. A human being for a slime ball who will usher in decades of uncertainty and conflict.
All your points may be correct (they are not) but you are losing the objective. Consider if your influence is better deployed into the very small circle of political scientists digging for intellectual nuance or into the real politics of winning with the candidate who will respond to the majority in the most inclusive way. It’s all about winning. Not necessarily about in-depth understanding of each issue. No one will listen to you and those that do represent a club faction with little influence. Winning.
Ok. Delete ‘effective’. You are proving my point - you see that, right? Just pick the candidate that reflects your values - not necessarily your complete support.
So, in an exceptionally long winded narrative, you caution, strongly, against believing in Mark Carney’s suggested approaches to countering Trump's threats to our very existence as a nation, and observe (correctly) that Poillievre’s perpetually angry rhetoric is also not the answer to our current dilemma, but offer absolutely no concrete reasons why, or how any other Canadian politician could do better. May I suggest, Mr Savage, that you register as a leadership candidate yourself and take your soapbox to the street corners of our country? Good luck in helping to stop the increasingly unhinged “king” to the south.
Speaking as a pragmatist, it seems our choice will be between Carney and Poilievre. Which one is more likely to do what must be done? Regardless of these "reservations" about Carney, I believe that Poilievre has major red flags attached and not even a semblance of coherent policy to deal with all these issues that are now present and will also continue to manifest in new ways. How about a full analysis of Poilievre "policy" and his competence or lack thereof to guide Canadians through these crises? The logical, thinking voting population has no other choice than Carney in this moment.
how has "Lesser Evilism" been working for the last 30-40+ years? record levels of homelessness, record levels of food bank usage among children, record levels of rent inflation, record high grocery prices...Trudeau didn't prevent any of this, Carney won't fix any of this, and they're the best we can do? No. Weak Trudeau/Carney liberals create the conditions for Poilievre/Trump strongmen. They enable them.
Your frustration at PP needs to extend beyond the voting booth. Worker organization and socialist electoral powerblocks growing *between* elections are the only things that will prevent Trump style corporatism from migrating north
Certainly hope your belief that Carney will somehow fail, suggests that you think that PP the politician with a paperboy’s worldly experience will be Canada’s saviour. Please say it ain’t so
I think that since this was written, the book “abundance” has come out. Ezra Klein. His premise was progressives in the US failed not because ideas were wrong but because they don’t get anything done. The goal is not pass a law, or allocate money for housing, but build houses that people can live in, in quantity. Results are required. You have to ask the question honestly why many people are migrating hard right, towards authoritarianism (and many know it) when all the “wonderful” ideas are from the left. When you give a social program to benefit some, (no matter how justified ) but others feel their issues continually are not being addressed, and they have to pay for it, they are seeking other answers. To share the wealth to a growing population, you have to also be creating wealth. You must do both.
A bad analogy, admittedly…..in response to your captain / ship analogy. Imagine the ship was the Titanic. I am pretty sure the captain knew exactly where they wanted to go. That is not enough. I want someone who would have considered and tried all options to improve the ships safety( hull design, lifeboats, slow down in the fog) to be my captain. Someone a little less certain that one great idea will be enough. ( not a dig at Charlie because I am a member of his resistance). I spent years in supply chain and crisis management, if you don’t simultaneously start doing something of everything, immediately, you fail.
The future of social ideals is not to yell them louder, but focus on delivering some of them properly to the benefit of all, to prove their greater value.
I am a progressive conservative voting liberal, and I have encouraged vote NDP in others ridings to defeat the CPC. Less ideology, more pragmatism please.
So pointing out that another technocratic centrist that won't change anything and will end up propping the far right is "too much theoretical blather".
"calm, able, likeable, strong person"
Everything is vague, undefinable personality politics with so called centrists. Just vibes.
Mastering a compass is a skill set required at this time required in Canadian politics. You can't name a current politician who has the same mastery. If money is managed properly, the country navigates all types of obstacles.
Charlie Angus would make a better Captain with Carney in the engine room where he belongs.
If the ship is headed toward a sea full of icebergs fine tuning the engine will only marginally protect the ship. What we need a is a captain that can steer us around the danger.
To continue your metaphor, mastering the compass only tells you direction it can’t identify obstacles.
Countries are capable of boosting military spending and keeping that investment domestic: Denmark has rapidly grown theirs to 3.2% of GDP in response to the growing threat of the now all but formalised US-Russia axis. Denmark has done this in 2 years.
In contrast, Carney's promise of 2% by 2030 is paltry, timid and underscores his weakness on issues of international affairs – no mention yet of Ukraine, Palestine, ICJ, ICC, foreign development aid, etc. In fairness, he did discuss focusing that spending domestically. He is politically wise to ignore the unavoidable pain of US-Canada supply-chain decoupling. Can't blame the man for enjoying the free ride from our compromised media establishment for as long as it lasts. All the way to the PMO?
Too much academic, theoretical blather. I don’t want the proto fascist, Trump aligned PP to win. I don’t want the NDP rewarded for the dismantling of unified opposition. I want a calm, able, likeable, strong person to lead the ‘natural’ political party of Canada to victory. I’m with Carney.
If you're with Carney then you're against the working class. Prove me wrong by explaining step-by-step how Carney Liberals will increase median income in Canada (adjusted for inflation).
1. Adjusting capital tax rate to make Canada more attractive for investment.
2. Cushioning the economic impact of tariffs on taxpayers by adjusting the EU rates.
3. Providing a calm, strong, experienced voice as counterpoint to the American chaos.
4. Balancing tax income with extraordinary circumstances requiring extraordinary expenses.
PP is running his party into an election with the same attack, populist strategy as Trump down south. This does not prepare the ground for effective resistance.
1. Capital gains tax rate has no statistical correlation with economic growth or real median income.
2. "Cushioning" is too broad a term and therefore meaningless.
3. "Calm strong, experienced voice" that has no plan to raise real median wages for workers and restore food & housing affordability ratios is a useless voice. Working class has no need for such useless voices.
4. Another statement that does not answer my original question.
You proved my point for me that Carney has no plan to raise the real median wages of the working class and restore their purchasing power. In contrast the NDP will bring sectoral bargaining, card check certification, ensure anti scab remains and strengthen the collective bargaining rights of workers. More than happy to answer any specific questions you may have on fiscal & monetary policy. Cheers.
Hahahaha! Working class just can’t wait for that adjusted capital tax rate. Beautiful.
Lmfao. Carney just got rid of the capital gains tax. Keep being blind to how class warfare shapes society at your peril Lubor. So dumb
You smart! Can u tech me?
have you any remote idea how dated, boring, discredited and damaging to your own cause your ‘class warfare’ platform is? There is one system as evil as fascism - communism. Of, forgot: you are an irrelevant idiot. Happy Easter!
blather? this is so clearly written a 5th grader could understand it
This 5th grader doesn’t have the time or inclination to sort through the academic nuances of why a candidate does not exhibit the ideal profile of our future leader. This happened in the US where everybody had some problem with something Harris said or did that revealed her flaws. In the meantime, the empire was being set alight by people who either never participate in the democratic echochamber or seize on the divisions and faults in our arguments as evidence of weakness. So. Keep it simple, direct, moral and effective. That is my point.
Why does all public thinking have to take the form of four-word "direct, moral and effective" slogans? What does "effective" even mean here? That is a nonsensical retort
Also LOL if you think the reason Harris lost was because of think pieces like this. And not, you know, being silent on genocide and her platform offering nothing new to working class americans (destroying the federal jobs program, abandoning anti-fracking stance etc etc etc)
Right. And there we have it. You don’t see how you are proving my point here? All of those evil aspects of her pounded by the right and far left have increased her vulnerability. And those clever commentators on the “woke” left have traded a candidate who failed them in some ways for a candidate who fails them in all ways. A human being for a slime ball who will usher in decades of uncertainty and conflict.
All your points may be correct (they are not) but you are losing the objective. Consider if your influence is better deployed into the very small circle of political scientists digging for intellectual nuance or into the real politics of winning with the candidate who will respond to the majority in the most inclusive way. It’s all about winning. Not necessarily about in-depth understanding of each issue. No one will listen to you and those that do represent a club faction with little influence. Winning.
Ok. Delete ‘effective’. You are proving my point - you see that, right? Just pick the candidate that reflects your values - not necessarily your complete support.
So, in an exceptionally long winded narrative, you caution, strongly, against believing in Mark Carney’s suggested approaches to countering Trump's threats to our very existence as a nation, and observe (correctly) that Poillievre’s perpetually angry rhetoric is also not the answer to our current dilemma, but offer absolutely no concrete reasons why, or how any other Canadian politician could do better. May I suggest, Mr Savage, that you register as a leadership candidate yourself and take your soapbox to the street corners of our country? Good luck in helping to stop the increasingly unhinged “king” to the south.
Speaking as a pragmatist, it seems our choice will be between Carney and Poilievre. Which one is more likely to do what must be done? Regardless of these "reservations" about Carney, I believe that Poilievre has major red flags attached and not even a semblance of coherent policy to deal with all these issues that are now present and will also continue to manifest in new ways. How about a full analysis of Poilievre "policy" and his competence or lack thereof to guide Canadians through these crises? The logical, thinking voting population has no other choice than Carney in this moment.
how has "Lesser Evilism" been working for the last 30-40+ years? record levels of homelessness, record levels of food bank usage among children, record levels of rent inflation, record high grocery prices...Trudeau didn't prevent any of this, Carney won't fix any of this, and they're the best we can do? No. Weak Trudeau/Carney liberals create the conditions for Poilievre/Trump strongmen. They enable them.
Your frustration at PP needs to extend beyond the voting booth. Worker organization and socialist electoral powerblocks growing *between* elections are the only things that will prevent Trump style corporatism from migrating north
Certainly hope your belief that Carney will somehow fail, suggests that you think that PP the politician with a paperboy’s worldly experience will be Canada’s saviour. Please say it ain’t so
I am not a fan or supporter of Pierre Poilievre, no.
What a bizarre conclusion.
Thank you for your clarification
I think Carney is “just a little further past the post” than you have written here. With your expertise I’m surprised you haven’t noticed that.
Canada was part of the Europe talks yesterday. Why don’t you weigh in on that next round.
I think that since this was written, the book “abundance” has come out. Ezra Klein. His premise was progressives in the US failed not because ideas were wrong but because they don’t get anything done. The goal is not pass a law, or allocate money for housing, but build houses that people can live in, in quantity. Results are required. You have to ask the question honestly why many people are migrating hard right, towards authoritarianism (and many know it) when all the “wonderful” ideas are from the left. When you give a social program to benefit some, (no matter how justified ) but others feel their issues continually are not being addressed, and they have to pay for it, they are seeking other answers. To share the wealth to a growing population, you have to also be creating wealth. You must do both.
A bad analogy, admittedly…..in response to your captain / ship analogy. Imagine the ship was the Titanic. I am pretty sure the captain knew exactly where they wanted to go. That is not enough. I want someone who would have considered and tried all options to improve the ships safety( hull design, lifeboats, slow down in the fog) to be my captain. Someone a little less certain that one great idea will be enough. ( not a dig at Charlie because I am a member of his resistance). I spent years in supply chain and crisis management, if you don’t simultaneously start doing something of everything, immediately, you fail.
The future of social ideals is not to yell them louder, but focus on delivering some of them properly to the benefit of all, to prove their greater value.
I am a progressive conservative voting liberal, and I have encouraged vote NDP in others ridings to defeat the CPC. Less ideology, more pragmatism please.
https://open.substack.com/pub/lukewsavage/p/the-paucity-of-abundance?r=8arpj&utm_medium=ios
Curious to hear your thoughts on degrowth, eco-marxism, et cetera. I absolutely love Kohei Saito's "Slow down."
So pointing out that another technocratic centrist that won't change anything and will end up propping the far right is "too much theoretical blather".
"calm, able, likeable, strong person"
Everything is vague, undefinable personality politics with so called centrists. Just vibes.
Mastering a compass is a skill set required at this time required in Canadian politics. You can't name a current politician who has the same mastery. If money is managed properly, the country navigates all types of obstacles.
The voters are the captains. We either sail the ship or we don't. One man alone does not decide our fate. We have a good compass, but will we use it?
Charlie Angus would make a better Captain with Carney in the engine room where he belongs.
If the ship is headed toward a sea full of icebergs fine tuning the engine will only marginally protect the ship. What we need a is a captain that can steer us around the danger.
To continue your metaphor, mastering the compass only tells you direction it can’t identify obstacles.
Thank you. Great assessment of the situation.
Carney could end up being our Biden, with all that that implies.
What is the alternative?
we have to make one. if we wait around for a saviour we are doomed to keep ratcheting rightward our whole lives
Countries are capable of boosting military spending and keeping that investment domestic: Denmark has rapidly grown theirs to 3.2% of GDP in response to the growing threat of the now all but formalised US-Russia axis. Denmark has done this in 2 years.
In contrast, Carney's promise of 2% by 2030 is paltry, timid and underscores his weakness on issues of international affairs – no mention yet of Ukraine, Palestine, ICJ, ICC, foreign development aid, etc. In fairness, he did discuss focusing that spending domestically. He is politically wise to ignore the unavoidable pain of US-Canada supply-chain decoupling. Can't blame the man for enjoying the free ride from our compromised media establishment for as long as it lasts. All the way to the PMO?
Having followed MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) over a decade, it has become clear that economic orthodoxy cannot be challenged.
All the ‘experts’ are weighing in now. 🙄