Scott Reid wrote a good article about this as well. Right now, a good portion of the voters want change. And one way or another, they will have change, with or without Trudeau.
In other words, if Trudeau wants to stay on, he needs to come up with “change”. This will require a number of drastic policy changes and is never easy for a party in government. The Liberals also have the additional disadvantage that they are being blamed for provincial failures (or outright sabotage). But here is also where the opportunities are, if the voters don’t care about federal / provincial responsibilities, there is nothing stopping the federal government from firmly stepping into the delivery of healthcare, justice, housing and education. For example, make it a requirement for provinces to bring low level crime to trial within a month. Appoint 30 extra judges per province to support this. Organize a couple of empty court room settings where provinces fail to show up with prosecutors, court staff and the like. Stop playing nice with provinces.
In the coming months we will see if the current leadership in the Liberal party is able to embrace this or not. If not, then they deserve a few years in opposition.
You seem to forget that "them" deserving" a few years in opposition also consigns ALL OF US to the same insanity currently creating wholesale panic in the U.S. because it would be at the WORST possible time, unprecedented in even us baby boomers' longer and perspective-providing experience.
We absolutely can no longer afford to indulge OUR MAGA-adjacent version here, a.k.a. The Context-Free/Climate-Free Party of Canada/Convoy Party of Canada/Chaos Party of Canada/Clown Posse of Canada, OR its closest ally---the still-laying-low-for-the-most-part CHRISTIAN Party of Canada. "Christian Nationalism" is finally being acknowledged as a bona fide political aspiration after decades of deliberately percolating very effectively into ALL levels of government, recently reaching the apex--- the Supreme Court of Canada.
Now thoroughly emboldened thanks to the Orange Jesus, the right wing has giddily but confidently presented a 900 page draft called "Project 2025," which is ALSO showing up in the media, and it's a fucking nightmare. It's the one they've been warning everyone about ALL this time, but just hasn't got traction because EVERYBODY goes to church down there. Even Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are Catholics, just like Amy Coney Barrett (but there are always degrees of "believers" aren't there, from "new-agers" to ISIS, despite the shared common denominator, itself actually the definition of "extreme," akin to claiming that Santa LIVES, at the North Pole which is kind of like "heaven."
So down there, the whole thing is ACTUALLY coming down, not to a choice between two old men, the ultimate turn-off in a youth-obsessed culture, but rather theocracy and democracy.
So consider, in that context, how Trudeau is in the same position as Biden. Is it not possible that the irrational thing that is happening in recent POLLS (most recently showed to be quite wrong in the U.K., a recurring truth) is the result of subliminal advertising truly WORKING, the key feature being that people are not even AWARE they've been influenced? And that over time the relentless assault on Trudeau in particular that started with Harper's cons presenting the first attack ad against Chretien that mocked him very nastily and personally, a FIRST in Canadian politics (some of us have THAT much context) has in fact deeply infiltrated (or, again, "percolated") into our more-superficial-than-ever-before-politics thanks to destructive social media largely unbeknownst to a population that is also experiencing unprecedented "poly-crises" primarily due to CORPORATE GREED and end-stage capitalism, NOT government. The recent shallow response among university students, usually the "critical thinkers" to the Gaza mess shows that.
And misinformation/disinformation parity between the cons and ANYONE btw? Bothsidesism straight up.
And all the young turks living and loving the gamesmanship/drama? May I suggest that you've also unwittingly succumbed to the toxic, stupid conservative "narrative."
Which is all it is btw; there's zero substance. Zero. And "net-zero" is just a joke.
But it's not just the fucking, shameless, bold-faced LYING; there's also the seasoned perspective that sees very clearly that "something wicked this way comes," all drama aside.
Nothing new under the sun but no, not communism, democratic socialism like in the highly successful Scandinavian countries. Mitigated capitalism in other words; it's inherently self-limiting for many obvious reasons, based as it is on our baser instincts of competition and greed, and the premise of infinite growth in the context of finite resources.
But despite climate change bearing down on us as THE most definitive limitation EVER, it seems that pressing reality somehow can't actually be properly "processed" by the current corporate behemoths who are on a roll like never before. This while ever more rampant societal inequality festers, threatening the whole society.
OR it could be another model that we absolutely HAVE seen before. Unfortunately, history is just another context that this bunch of yobs/rogues/proud boys/thugs and all around juvenile delinquents can't grasp. Instead, they fancy themselves as being part of a revolution, and since they love the passionate blowout of playoff games in team sports, they've transposed that mob solidarity to politics courtesy of a wholly unscrupulous "leader" a big, rich "business" guy who talks VERY differently, more like them, like "real" people," and "tells it like it is."
In truth, what they're involved in is just another cult of personality that is actually not a revolution but a "devolution," a regression of civilization as we have known it, and solely for the benefit of a few. No way to run a democracy.
Another thing they don't grasp is how their cult leader wouldn't normally wipe his feet on the likes of them; he's just using them, and collaborating with the Christian Nationalists to get power, period.
I note that, as you say, Scandinavian countries are capitalist, albeit with a strong safety net. In particular, Sweden has companies like IKEA, ABBA, Ericsson, Volvo. They did nationalize a lot of sectors in the 1980s, but since have backed off and have made more space for the private sector. For example, their health care system is now a mixed private-public one, and reports are that service quality has improved.
Norway, of course is a major producer of oil and gas, and is busy drilling in the North Sea for more. They may be environmentally friendly domestically, but contribute more than thir share to global greenhouse gas emissions.
Far from "end-stage capitalism", these countries seem to be in the mainstream development of capitalist societies (a concept that is not static).
Changing Freeland at this point won’t do much. We are well past the time this kind of cosmetic move would have done something. Also, if Carney’s goal is really to replace Trudeau, I am not why he would jump in at this point to try to save him. He could just wait a couple months for the leadership race.
The best way for the liberals to gain points over conservatives is on policies. PP is really good at rage farming and slogans but has committed very little concrete and often it was not making any sense. However, this needs a lot of work in communicating sometimes complicated policies, which the liberals are also bad at.
Lastly, there is still a nuclear option, namely a Trudeau’s resignation. While this option has risks, I believe it could help. I believe that many people are not necessarily in love with PP but wants Trudeau out so badly that they say they will vote conservative.
Evan, you write, in part, "... I wrote in October that Freeland going was a conversation the Liberals had to have...." to which I ask, "Why blame Freeland when the problem is - primarily - Trudeau?"
In fact, I think that the issue is much more than simply Trudeau or Freeland but JT is the primary problem, at least in terms of personalities.
I have written to you in the past and I always state my bias in that I am not left of center but, rather, I am right of center. I have no problem with the idea of redistributing wealth in sensible ways but I absolutely have a LARGE problem with the idea of eliminating the creation of wealth, which is something that this government has specialized in doing. Okay, bias stated.
You are not a fan of Carney and neither am I. As near as I can tell, he did a somewhat credible job as Governor of the Bank of Canada when he was here. Governor of the Bank of England? I have no idea and really don't care. I do think that since he has returned he has undercut the current Governor simply by his comments and presence and, particularly, by his political ambition. So, no to Mark for me. [Oh, and I don't think that Tiff has doing particularly well, either.]
Hmmmm ...... anti democratic, are we? You say, "... there’s no virtue in complaining about the fact that the right wants to win. You don’t get points for correctly identifying a bad thing as bad..." So, simply the desire of those of us on the right wishing to win power is "bad" is it? In other words, yes, we are allowed to participate in elections but if we "want to win" it is bad? You are not at all democratic, Sir.
You touch the idea that two per cent of spending on defense is "... a major policy coup ..." I heartily disagree, Sir. This government (and no, don't even bother with reference to previous governments because THIS is the government that we have had for almost nine interminable years) as agreed time and time and time and time again that two per cent is a good number. To announce that "now" we will reach it and to claim some dubious sort of virtue is incredibly stupid. And, of course, that ignores that a) such an "achievement" is to occur EIGHT years from now; b) is unlikely to actually be two per cent if the economy grows reasonably; and c) deliverology, old boy - that is, this government simply is unable to deliver what it promises. So, why should ANYONE believe that this will occur? That is why should anyone on either the left or the right believe that?
I agree with your view that this Government would have trouble delivering on its defence commitments. But "deliverology" is a much wider problem for them. Indeed, it took the NDP holding a gun to their heads to get them to move on childcare, pharmacare and dental care. Even then, the policies' implementation are far from being well thught out, and it is no surprise that child care, the earliest of the trio, is running into problems (shortages of spaces, waiting lists, disproportionally used by upper middle class).
I'm certainly not an expert on machinery of government, but it strikes me that the root problem is extreme centralization of decisions in the PMO. Donald Savoie has documented that this trend has been under way for some fifty years, but it has reached a nadir of dysfunctionality. So perhaps the first thing to do is to devolve some authorities to the various ministers -- assuming that all initiative has not yet been driven out of them.
Oh, and "Mr. Schultz"? As they say (accurately) that was my father. I am Ken.
I am 73 years old and I am still Ken. It is my kids who can tell people to call me "Mr. Schultz" but I can and always will tell you and anyone else that I am Ken.
Very good Ken. I will follow that. FWIW I am 78. The first time I got involved in a political campaign was when Charles Taylor ran for the NDP in the Town of Mount Royal riding, in 1964 or 1965. I worked for NDP candidates until the 1980s. By then I had been a shop steward for my public service union in Ottawa, and had become quite disillusioned with the way governments (and especially politicians) work. My position became, and still is, that government is a necessary evil, so it should be kept as small as possible while still ensuring that it does what has to be done by it. Sort of J S Mill's On Liberty (not his On Socialism).
It is apparent that you and I, leaning somewhat left (you) and right (I) see much of the same problem.
I absolutely do believe that government is important in the lives of all citizens of the country but it should not (except in the event of the most profound disability, poverty, etc., etc. take over the rights and, yes, obligations of we citizens to take care of ourselves.
Charles Taylor. There is a name that I haven't heard for quite a while. The thing about Charles, of course is his heritage, i.e. he was the son of Edward Plunkett Taylor of Argus (yup, all you younguns have to look that one up - check on Conrad Black's financial rise) fame.
And, of course, if you must have government, you must have those who work for government. As with any employer, a government must adequately compensate workers and provide reasonable working conditions. So, your work as a shop steward would have put you in my good books, particularly as you became disillusioned with governments and politicians. And, of course, I am impelled to add, how those same governments and politicians bribe their workers and become beholden to those same workers.
Yes, I used "deliverology" as a short cut term that the government itself used to use - positively, in their own usage but sneering in the meaning that I attribute to it.
So, perhaps allow me to mount my soap box.
I am, as noted, somewhat (only somewhat! honest!) to the right of center but that does not prohibit (for me) the need for some reallocation of wealth. It does, however, make me worry about the GENERATION of the wealth that is being redistributed.
So. I see the surface attractiveness of child care, pharmacare and dental care. The problem is that all of these are terrifically, terrifically costly even on the limited basis that the government is attempting (and not succeeding at all well). The thought of trying to roll these - and many other - programs out on a more widespread basis is frightening both for the cost and for the chaos that is entirely likely to occur / has occurred / is currently occurring. Yes, fairness, equality, blah, blah, blah, but what about the idea that to do these things properly you need to take a large, large amount of wealth out of the economy? Particularly when you are also taking steps to make it harder to generate more wealth?
Anyway, I say the governments (note: plural) are trying to do far, far too much. The result is that they do not do anything at all well and they fail at so much. Hell, in my own city of Calgary, the damned idiots at City Hall cannot even keep the roads in even somewhat adequate repair; streetlights are often out for extended periods; and, so forth. Therefore, my prescription is as follows:
a) each level of government determine what their core responsibilities are and abandon ALL the rest;
b) if there is something that isn't a core responsibility then negotiate with the other levels of government (e.g. feds negotiate with provinces, etc.) as to just whom will do X or Y; if a province doesn't want / can't do X or Y, then the feds shouldn't rush in;
c) lay off the unnecessary civil servants and get them being productive instead of a drain on the economy; brutal but necessary as we simply have far, far, far more bodies employed by governments than necessary right now and it is getting much worse;
d) and, item b)? When you have a program that is your responsibility, do it RIGHT, I mean really right.
My point is that governments today simply try to do everything and end up doing pretty much nothing competently and often do what they do terrifically badly. The old ten miles wide and a quarter inch deep syndrome.
Utopian? Certainly, but one has to have objectives and reasons for those objectives.
As a final comment, yes, Savoie is a pretty sharp boy (I offer the word "boy" as I hope that he has many years left to provide his wisdom).
The problem Liberals face is they've lost the plot and appear to be stone cold deaf.
Canadians are suffering and the future of this country has never been more bleak and Liberals across the country are bleating on about increasing taxation to stop climate change (which is so scientifically unsound it makes the belief in the Easter Bunny seem rational), taxing businesses into oblivion, taxing ambition and sound financial planning (which Liberals would know nothing about), sending more and more of Canadian's hard-earned money to foreign wars, while importing cheap labour that raises the price of the ever-decreasing supply of decent housing in the country.
As Canadians flock to the Conservatives, Liberals blame Trudeau, not for the policies outlined above, but for his lack of leaning harder into those policies and providing a better sales pitch to Canadians, as though that's the reason Trudeau and the current Liberal party is the most hated in Canadian history.
The saddest part of this is that the Liberals really have nothing to fear because between the 30% of the vote the party will get (I mean you could run a bottle of water as the candidate in some ridings in Ontario and win the seat) and the 20-30% the NDP will likely hold onto, the coalition of the left will continue to hold onto power.
The Conservatives have no hope of taking seats in Quebec. The voters always run back to the Bloc when they want to protest the current government. Atlantic Canada may swing blue but that hardly counts for anything in the grand scheme of forming a majority government, and anything less for the Conservatives is a loss because the Liberal-NDP coalition can easily oust them.
Besides, we all know Trudeau is not really steering the ship. He's just the puppet out front. He can easily be replaced by another puppet and the ship will continue on its course.
Scott Reid wrote a good article about this as well. Right now, a good portion of the voters want change. And one way or another, they will have change, with or without Trudeau.
In other words, if Trudeau wants to stay on, he needs to come up with “change”. This will require a number of drastic policy changes and is never easy for a party in government. The Liberals also have the additional disadvantage that they are being blamed for provincial failures (or outright sabotage). But here is also where the opportunities are, if the voters don’t care about federal / provincial responsibilities, there is nothing stopping the federal government from firmly stepping into the delivery of healthcare, justice, housing and education. For example, make it a requirement for provinces to bring low level crime to trial within a month. Appoint 30 extra judges per province to support this. Organize a couple of empty court room settings where provinces fail to show up with prosecutors, court staff and the like. Stop playing nice with provinces.
In the coming months we will see if the current leadership in the Liberal party is able to embrace this or not. If not, then they deserve a few years in opposition.
You seem to forget that "them" deserving" a few years in opposition also consigns ALL OF US to the same insanity currently creating wholesale panic in the U.S. because it would be at the WORST possible time, unprecedented in even us baby boomers' longer and perspective-providing experience.
We absolutely can no longer afford to indulge OUR MAGA-adjacent version here, a.k.a. The Context-Free/Climate-Free Party of Canada/Convoy Party of Canada/Chaos Party of Canada/Clown Posse of Canada, OR its closest ally---the still-laying-low-for-the-most-part CHRISTIAN Party of Canada. "Christian Nationalism" is finally being acknowledged as a bona fide political aspiration after decades of deliberately percolating very effectively into ALL levels of government, recently reaching the apex--- the Supreme Court of Canada.
Now thoroughly emboldened thanks to the Orange Jesus, the right wing has giddily but confidently presented a 900 page draft called "Project 2025," which is ALSO showing up in the media, and it's a fucking nightmare. It's the one they've been warning everyone about ALL this time, but just hasn't got traction because EVERYBODY goes to church down there. Even Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are Catholics, just like Amy Coney Barrett (but there are always degrees of "believers" aren't there, from "new-agers" to ISIS, despite the shared common denominator, itself actually the definition of "extreme," akin to claiming that Santa LIVES, at the North Pole which is kind of like "heaven."
So down there, the whole thing is ACTUALLY coming down, not to a choice between two old men, the ultimate turn-off in a youth-obsessed culture, but rather theocracy and democracy.
So consider, in that context, how Trudeau is in the same position as Biden. Is it not possible that the irrational thing that is happening in recent POLLS (most recently showed to be quite wrong in the U.K., a recurring truth) is the result of subliminal advertising truly WORKING, the key feature being that people are not even AWARE they've been influenced? And that over time the relentless assault on Trudeau in particular that started with Harper's cons presenting the first attack ad against Chretien that mocked him very nastily and personally, a FIRST in Canadian politics (some of us have THAT much context) has in fact deeply infiltrated (or, again, "percolated") into our more-superficial-than-ever-before-politics thanks to destructive social media largely unbeknownst to a population that is also experiencing unprecedented "poly-crises" primarily due to CORPORATE GREED and end-stage capitalism, NOT government. The recent shallow response among university students, usually the "critical thinkers" to the Gaza mess shows that.
And misinformation/disinformation parity between the cons and ANYONE btw? Bothsidesism straight up.
And all the young turks living and loving the gamesmanship/drama? May I suggest that you've also unwittingly succumbed to the toxic, stupid conservative "narrative."
Which is all it is btw; there's zero substance. Zero. And "net-zero" is just a joke.
But it's not just the fucking, shameless, bold-faced LYING; there's also the seasoned perspective that sees very clearly that "something wicked this way comes," all drama aside.
"end-stage capitalism", eh? What comes next? Soviet-style communism. perhaps? Or another model that we have not seen yet?
Nothing new under the sun but no, not communism, democratic socialism like in the highly successful Scandinavian countries. Mitigated capitalism in other words; it's inherently self-limiting for many obvious reasons, based as it is on our baser instincts of competition and greed, and the premise of infinite growth in the context of finite resources.
But despite climate change bearing down on us as THE most definitive limitation EVER, it seems that pressing reality somehow can't actually be properly "processed" by the current corporate behemoths who are on a roll like never before. This while ever more rampant societal inequality festers, threatening the whole society.
OR it could be another model that we absolutely HAVE seen before. Unfortunately, history is just another context that this bunch of yobs/rogues/proud boys/thugs and all around juvenile delinquents can't grasp. Instead, they fancy themselves as being part of a revolution, and since they love the passionate blowout of playoff games in team sports, they've transposed that mob solidarity to politics courtesy of a wholly unscrupulous "leader" a big, rich "business" guy who talks VERY differently, more like them, like "real" people," and "tells it like it is."
In truth, what they're involved in is just another cult of personality that is actually not a revolution but a "devolution," a regression of civilization as we have known it, and solely for the benefit of a few. No way to run a democracy.
Another thing they don't grasp is how their cult leader wouldn't normally wipe his feet on the likes of them; he's just using them, and collaborating with the Christian Nationalists to get power, period.
Thank you for the reply.
I note that, as you say, Scandinavian countries are capitalist, albeit with a strong safety net. In particular, Sweden has companies like IKEA, ABBA, Ericsson, Volvo. They did nationalize a lot of sectors in the 1980s, but since have backed off and have made more space for the private sector. For example, their health care system is now a mixed private-public one, and reports are that service quality has improved.
Norway, of course is a major producer of oil and gas, and is busy drilling in the North Sea for more. They may be environmentally friendly domestically, but contribute more than thir share to global greenhouse gas emissions.
Far from "end-stage capitalism", these countries seem to be in the mainstream development of capitalist societies (a concept that is not static).
Changing Freeland at this point won’t do much. We are well past the time this kind of cosmetic move would have done something. Also, if Carney’s goal is really to replace Trudeau, I am not why he would jump in at this point to try to save him. He could just wait a couple months for the leadership race.
The best way for the liberals to gain points over conservatives is on policies. PP is really good at rage farming and slogans but has committed very little concrete and often it was not making any sense. However, this needs a lot of work in communicating sometimes complicated policies, which the liberals are also bad at.
Lastly, there is still a nuclear option, namely a Trudeau’s resignation. While this option has risks, I believe it could help. I believe that many people are not necessarily in love with PP but wants Trudeau out so badly that they say they will vote conservative.
Evan, you write, in part, "... I wrote in October that Freeland going was a conversation the Liberals had to have...." to which I ask, "Why blame Freeland when the problem is - primarily - Trudeau?"
In fact, I think that the issue is much more than simply Trudeau or Freeland but JT is the primary problem, at least in terms of personalities.
I have written to you in the past and I always state my bias in that I am not left of center but, rather, I am right of center. I have no problem with the idea of redistributing wealth in sensible ways but I absolutely have a LARGE problem with the idea of eliminating the creation of wealth, which is something that this government has specialized in doing. Okay, bias stated.
You are not a fan of Carney and neither am I. As near as I can tell, he did a somewhat credible job as Governor of the Bank of Canada when he was here. Governor of the Bank of England? I have no idea and really don't care. I do think that since he has returned he has undercut the current Governor simply by his comments and presence and, particularly, by his political ambition. So, no to Mark for me. [Oh, and I don't think that Tiff has doing particularly well, either.]
Hmmmm ...... anti democratic, are we? You say, "... there’s no virtue in complaining about the fact that the right wants to win. You don’t get points for correctly identifying a bad thing as bad..." So, simply the desire of those of us on the right wishing to win power is "bad" is it? In other words, yes, we are allowed to participate in elections but if we "want to win" it is bad? You are not at all democratic, Sir.
You touch the idea that two per cent of spending on defense is "... a major policy coup ..." I heartily disagree, Sir. This government (and no, don't even bother with reference to previous governments because THIS is the government that we have had for almost nine interminable years) as agreed time and time and time and time again that two per cent is a good number. To announce that "now" we will reach it and to claim some dubious sort of virtue is incredibly stupid. And, of course, that ignores that a) such an "achievement" is to occur EIGHT years from now; b) is unlikely to actually be two per cent if the economy grows reasonably; and c) deliverology, old boy - that is, this government simply is unable to deliver what it promises. So, why should ANYONE believe that this will occur? That is why should anyone on either the left or the right believe that?
Good afternoon Mr. Schultz
Fancy meeting you here.
I agree with your view that this Government would have trouble delivering on its defence commitments. But "deliverology" is a much wider problem for them. Indeed, it took the NDP holding a gun to their heads to get them to move on childcare, pharmacare and dental care. Even then, the policies' implementation are far from being well thught out, and it is no surprise that child care, the earliest of the trio, is running into problems (shortages of spaces, waiting lists, disproportionally used by upper middle class).
I'm certainly not an expert on machinery of government, but it strikes me that the root problem is extreme centralization of decisions in the PMO. Donald Savoie has documented that this trend has been under way for some fifty years, but it has reached a nadir of dysfunctionality. So perhaps the first thing to do is to devolve some authorities to the various ministers -- assuming that all initiative has not yet been driven out of them.
Oh, and "Mr. Schultz"? As they say (accurately) that was my father. I am Ken.
I am 73 years old and I am still Ken. It is my kids who can tell people to call me "Mr. Schultz" but I can and always will tell you and anyone else that I am Ken.
Hence, my usage of your given name.
Very good Ken. I will follow that. FWIW I am 78. The first time I got involved in a political campaign was when Charles Taylor ran for the NDP in the Town of Mount Royal riding, in 1964 or 1965. I worked for NDP candidates until the 1980s. By then I had been a shop steward for my public service union in Ottawa, and had become quite disillusioned with the way governments (and especially politicians) work. My position became, and still is, that government is a necessary evil, so it should be kept as small as possible while still ensuring that it does what has to be done by it. Sort of J S Mill's On Liberty (not his On Socialism).
George, yes to all!
It is apparent that you and I, leaning somewhat left (you) and right (I) see much of the same problem.
I absolutely do believe that government is important in the lives of all citizens of the country but it should not (except in the event of the most profound disability, poverty, etc., etc. take over the rights and, yes, obligations of we citizens to take care of ourselves.
Charles Taylor. There is a name that I haven't heard for quite a while. The thing about Charles, of course is his heritage, i.e. he was the son of Edward Plunkett Taylor of Argus (yup, all you younguns have to look that one up - check on Conrad Black's financial rise) fame.
And, of course, if you must have government, you must have those who work for government. As with any employer, a government must adequately compensate workers and provide reasonable working conditions. So, your work as a shop steward would have put you in my good books, particularly as you became disillusioned with governments and politicians. And, of course, I am impelled to add, how those same governments and politicians bribe their workers and become beholden to those same workers.
Cheers, George.
And to you, George, long time no read!
Yes, I used "deliverology" as a short cut term that the government itself used to use - positively, in their own usage but sneering in the meaning that I attribute to it.
So, perhaps allow me to mount my soap box.
I am, as noted, somewhat (only somewhat! honest!) to the right of center but that does not prohibit (for me) the need for some reallocation of wealth. It does, however, make me worry about the GENERATION of the wealth that is being redistributed.
So. I see the surface attractiveness of child care, pharmacare and dental care. The problem is that all of these are terrifically, terrifically costly even on the limited basis that the government is attempting (and not succeeding at all well). The thought of trying to roll these - and many other - programs out on a more widespread basis is frightening both for the cost and for the chaos that is entirely likely to occur / has occurred / is currently occurring. Yes, fairness, equality, blah, blah, blah, but what about the idea that to do these things properly you need to take a large, large amount of wealth out of the economy? Particularly when you are also taking steps to make it harder to generate more wealth?
Anyway, I say the governments (note: plural) are trying to do far, far too much. The result is that they do not do anything at all well and they fail at so much. Hell, in my own city of Calgary, the damned idiots at City Hall cannot even keep the roads in even somewhat adequate repair; streetlights are often out for extended periods; and, so forth. Therefore, my prescription is as follows:
a) each level of government determine what their core responsibilities are and abandon ALL the rest;
b) if there is something that isn't a core responsibility then negotiate with the other levels of government (e.g. feds negotiate with provinces, etc.) as to just whom will do X or Y; if a province doesn't want / can't do X or Y, then the feds shouldn't rush in;
c) lay off the unnecessary civil servants and get them being productive instead of a drain on the economy; brutal but necessary as we simply have far, far, far more bodies employed by governments than necessary right now and it is getting much worse;
d) and, item b)? When you have a program that is your responsibility, do it RIGHT, I mean really right.
My point is that governments today simply try to do everything and end up doing pretty much nothing competently and often do what they do terrifically badly. The old ten miles wide and a quarter inch deep syndrome.
Utopian? Certainly, but one has to have objectives and reasons for those objectives.
As a final comment, yes, Savoie is a pretty sharp boy (I offer the word "boy" as I hope that he has many years left to provide his wisdom).
The problem Liberals face is they've lost the plot and appear to be stone cold deaf.
Canadians are suffering and the future of this country has never been more bleak and Liberals across the country are bleating on about increasing taxation to stop climate change (which is so scientifically unsound it makes the belief in the Easter Bunny seem rational), taxing businesses into oblivion, taxing ambition and sound financial planning (which Liberals would know nothing about), sending more and more of Canadian's hard-earned money to foreign wars, while importing cheap labour that raises the price of the ever-decreasing supply of decent housing in the country.
As Canadians flock to the Conservatives, Liberals blame Trudeau, not for the policies outlined above, but for his lack of leaning harder into those policies and providing a better sales pitch to Canadians, as though that's the reason Trudeau and the current Liberal party is the most hated in Canadian history.
The saddest part of this is that the Liberals really have nothing to fear because between the 30% of the vote the party will get (I mean you could run a bottle of water as the candidate in some ridings in Ontario and win the seat) and the 20-30% the NDP will likely hold onto, the coalition of the left will continue to hold onto power.
The Conservatives have no hope of taking seats in Quebec. The voters always run back to the Bloc when they want to protest the current government. Atlantic Canada may swing blue but that hardly counts for anything in the grand scheme of forming a majority government, and anything less for the Conservatives is a loss because the Liberal-NDP coalition can easily oust them.
Besides, we all know Trudeau is not really steering the ship. He's just the puppet out front. He can easily be replaced by another puppet and the ship will continue on its course.