This is tragic. He’s such a regressive character in the face of what the world needs today.
Though for a country that is breaking so many treaties with First Nations, while denying institutional racism, I should probably keep my expectations low.
What the world needs has nothing to do with whatever leader is in charge of Canada. And against the backdrop of that existential problem, people rightly chose what stability they have available. Now is not the time to enable Convervative parliamentary games.
You have a low opinion of Canadians and humanity if you thing this is the only option for stability.
He has done nothing spectacular, in that I think it’s only common sense to stand up to USA in this way and seek partners elsewhere, etc.
Surely you can have this without rolling back environmental laws and all the other neoliberal silliness that comes with him.
You can’t have that level of change with a byelection. With the current elections there were only two possible outcomes: Liberal majority or Liberal minority.
And my opinion of humanity is extremely low. There’s absolutely nothing in history that shows people will ever do the ideal thing. The best you can do is try to work around our self destructive tendencies.
What the world needs has nothing to do with whatever leader is in charge of Canada.
Except the world includes Canada. Carney is essentially furnishing the oppressive apparatus that a Poilievre or similar government will run wild with while wasting precious time to solve the fundamental problems propelling far-right politics (particularly thinking of the housing crisis here). For now the Conservatives seem to be held off by the rally around the flag effect, but that won’t last forever.
The housing crisis was decades in the making and will take decades to solve. Something like 60% of voters are property owners, so no party is ever going to purposely crash prices.
From people I’ve spoken to, a lot of what’s driving Conservative support (especially amongst younger people) is simply the length of time that the Liberals have held power. For anyone under 30, the Liberals have been in office for their entire adult lives. Every difficulty in their lives is coloured by the fact that the Liberals were in charge, whether or not it was something the federal government could control.
The housing crisis was decades in the making and will take decades to solve.
Uh… no? At least, there’s no reason to think so, and places that actually tried have seen more immediate success than that. And in any case, those decades of work need to start happening now and they’re not.
so no party is ever going to purposely crash prices.
Then there’s no escaping the far-right. By definition you can either have affordable housing or high prices, and the lack of the former translates directly into free votes for the far-right (“kick the immigrants out so we can have houses” being the obvious pipeline).
For anyone under 30, the Liberals have been in office for their entire adult lives. Every difficulty in their lives is coloured by the fact that the Liberals were in charge, whether or not it was something the federal government could control.
Given the vast power of the modern administrative state, the lack of a serious attempt to solve problems says more about the person doing the solving than the problems being solved. The point being: A good majority of the difficulties in their lives ought to be coloured by the fact that the Liberals were in charge, because clearly they weren’t and aren’t doing a terrific job.
A good majority of the difficulties in their lives ought to be coloured by the fact that the Liberals were in charge, because clearly they weren’t and aren’t doing a terrific job.
And here we have a perfect demonstration of that problem. Tell me, which level of government in Canada is responsible for property, zoning, infrastructure, and housing in general?
I mean, provincial government as a rule, but that doesn’t mean the federal government can’t do anything about it. If the Liberals couldn’t have solved people’s problems then they shouldn’t have promised they would.
Exactly. It’s a provincial problem. The things that the federal government can do are indirect and slow moving.
Also, if you are going to post links as if they are proof of what you are saying, the website of their political opponents is beyond useless.
Our other choice is voting in a government that will instantly roll over to Trump.
That’s what makes it tragic.
He has done more to accelerate Canada’s green transition in under a year than Trudeau did in a decade.
Yes, there is a new pipeline. But there’s also a gigantic investment in carbon capture attached to it.
The resources needed for the green transition? We’re working on getting them. Someone to spearhead and articulate a resistance to hegemonic bullying? We on that. Starting a massive new rail line, opening/accelerating huge wind farms, serious electrification and opening the market to more EV’S? We got all that coming.
The reality is we live in a pluralistic society. There’s going to be things I dislike and conversely, things Conservatives dislike. Demanding a leader in a polarized times only bows to my side and none other is just silliness.
But there’s also a gigantic investment in carbon capture attached to it.
Maybe that bullshit flies at Queens polisci.
you’re right comrade. Let’s get comrade polivierre into power, he will surely help the planet and the first nations people.
Let’s see how much Carney will listen to First Nations when he rams a pipeline through their lands.
Canada has more than two political parties, you’ll learn that in 4th year in Kingston.
What’s your suggestion? Poliverre will do it with even less care and more environmental damay
Carbon capture isn’t economical yet which is why it had to be forced as part of the deal. However, silly Billy, it does capture carbon, our ostensible climate goal.
Again. Bullshit. Pure political theatre, no different than Clean Coal. Liberal Arts major love the idea of carbon capture.
Again, you seem to be misunderstanding the difference between technically viable and commercially viable.
You are welcome to share a reputable source that says carbon capture does not prevent carbon from entering the system…
LoL, that’s a typical liberal response. Someone mentions human rights breaches and the response is “but look at these things that they’ve done for the environment!”
I take it your clothes and the cobalt in your phone are also completely ethical?
Or, like Carney, are you maybe also caught in a complex, less moral than we’d prefer system?
What is this, the good place?
Unlike Carney (and as much as I try to be an ethical consumer), I’m not signing off or actively pushing for those policies.
And to add - purposefully asking federal courts to strike down environment protections isn’t “hard choices”, it’s actively making the choice
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-federal-court-lawsuit-motion-to-strike-9.7324601
Carney government asks court to strike down climate litigation
Just like Carney, you have reasonable limits on your commitments. You would likely be broke and unhappy if you tried to be a purely ethical person. Similarly, Canada also has realistic constraints.
You might also actually read the article to which you linked? Unless you feel that no government can update another’s goals, it’s a pretty silly lawsuit. (Imagine Harper had passed legislation saying that government policy could never again consider carbon emissions, would all future governments be bound by that too? If not, what’s the difference other than you liking one and not the other?)
You would likely be broke and unhappy if you tried to be a purely ethical person.
No, not really because it costs nothing to not purchase a product that you deem unethical.
I think you’ve incredibly misunderstood the article - citizens are taking the government to court for not abiding by their climate targets by actively eliminating key measures.
Since the plan was first launched in 2022, the Liberal government has eliminated key measures needed for Canada to achieve the 2030 target.
Unless you feel that no government can update another’s goals
I mean, Trump’s doing that too if that’s what you’re defending.
All I’ve seen is the same liberal strawman argument. Again, someone mentions human rights, you bring up an individual’s consumer ethics (as if that’s not dictated by government policy either), and then another strawman defense of a government flipping the book on their environmental agreements (like Trump does, but it’s ok because it’s Mark).
Some people and their cognitive dissonance is just as blinding as Maga
No, not really because it costs nothing to not purchase a product that you deem unethical.
Oh, so your phone is completely ethical?
citizens are taking the government to court for not abiding by their climate targets by actively eliminating key measures.
Yes. So, are governments should be legally bound by their predecessors’ commitments? (Despite the act in question explicitly stating “the Minister may amend an emissions target … or an emissions reduction plan.”)
What is wrong with people? I really have to ask. Are things going too well in Canada for them to vote for a wealth tax?
