Mark Carney can apparently do no wrong. Scroll through comments on news articles, and you’ll encounter an energetic online army defending the prime minister’s every action.
Cancelling a tax on the world’s most profitable tech giants? A genius chess move in his trade war against Trump.
Advocating for new pipelines while the country burns from climate change-fuelled wildfires? A tough decision to shore up Canadian sovereignty.
Boosting spending on the military to record and wasteful levels? A responsible counter to supposed perils like Russia or North Korea.
Expanding surveillance powers to crackdown on refugee rights? Well, at least he’s not Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
The U.S. President’s tariffs and threats have left Canadians anxious and disoriented, giving Carney an opportunity to move fast and with far too little scrutiny. He’s pushing through pro-corporate policies that go beyond anything he outlined on the campaign trail. The agenda is so right-wing, in fact, The Globe and Mail last week gleefully noted that “Brian Mulroney could have endorsed it.”
It’s no wonder that Carney is trying to push through his agenda as fast as possible, while Canadians remain disoriented. The prime minister’s newly-appointed top senior civil servant, Michael Sabia, is clear about this Canadian-style shock doctrine: “windows of opportunity open and close,” he wrote in a letter to civil servants on Monday. Sabia would be one to know: once upon a time he helped none other than Brian Mulroney privatize a rash of Crown corporations. Carney has even openly signalled he’s preparing to purge any civil servants who don’t get in line (with “high-level talk of recruiting other business achievers” to replace them).
We need to drop the Carney denialism in a hurry, and get angry instead. The prime minister, a consummate technocrat who knows how to cater to elite interests, is taking Canadians for a ride, while servicing his natural constituency: bankers, tech broligarchs, oil barons, and arms manufacturers. It’s time we open our eyes, clue in to what’s happening, follow the money—and put up a fight.
Yup. Hes right wing it was a gamble going for him to avoid to far worse Poilievre. That at least I still stand by.
The rage worthy thing is that prior to the election he was openly resisting Trump.
That is he revealing himself to be Carney the Coward instead of Carney the Courageous is really bad. Good thing the Bloc will never allow Carney to sell out our Dairy, so we have at least some degree of food security. Also good my partner and I know enough French to move to Quebec if things get bad.
Slogans and cancelling Prime for a few years isn't going to stop the US from rolling over us, militarily or economically if they really want. It's great everyone is willing to fight a 30 year insurgency but who wants that. I'll be dead before seeing any kind of Canada again. Yes I selfishly want the chance at retirement I was promised my whole life. I don't want a war if it can be avoided.
Anytime I bring up that this time is the last time Canada can build nukes with at least some plausible deniability that they aren't aimed at the US, I'm told they'll never allow it and it's immoral and it's not the Canadian way. It's the only chance to hold off an American threat for long enough to get through this but apparently hardly any Canadians want them. So negotiation is the only way. And we're not strong enough or unified enough to force our hand. Time is needed to forge new alliances and firm trade partners.
Carney was always a compromise to stave off a horrible outcome. No one is going to be happy. The right didn't win, the left can't get what they want and the middle has to scrape and fight to just maintain some of what we have. Nowhere near enough people want what the NDP is selling. Too many in the centre were dismissed, or called racist, or misogynistic, or homophobic, or fascist or whatever for veering from the party line. So too many gave up or just turned right just to feel like they'd get something.
The way this country over reacts to any kind news, real, exaggerated, contrived or just out and planted by agitators is so fucking disheartening.
True. Alliances are key for Canadian sovereignty and security. The nation should be cementing existing relationships with maximum effort. As patriotic as myself and other Canadians feel these days, it must be acknowledged - no imaginable scenario exists in which Canada alone has enough military might to act as a deterrent against US aggression.
Imagine that a fully functional nuclear arsenal wasn't a generation away, and Canada had one right now. Even then, if the US made the insane decision that Canada was lebensraum, our nation's military might alone could not prevent that.
I'm not even against a Canadian nuclear weapons program per se. But it makes no sense for Canada to pursue a nuclear weapons program right now, if the objective is to hold off a US threat. It's comforting to imagine that there's some panacea to the threats that Canada is facing right now, but I don't see how nuclear fits that bill in any way.
It's unfortunate that we even have to think these things. But anyway, that's my 2c.
How're they gonna stop him if he decides to to that? The cons would back him. Sure he would probably lose the next election if he does that, but is there an actual mechanism for BQ to block such a move if he doesn't care to win again?
The CPC wants government. They need Quebec seats to get it.
The last Conservative I can remember who openly talked about supply management in Quebec is Maxime Bernier. He is no longer in the party and no longer holds his Quebec seat.
The fact that Bernier is a fucking idiot also didn’t help his case
I think he locked down the biker chick vote.
They passed a law blocking it and the cons are desperate enough to go against him on it, as they already did it once.
Carney the politician would apparently do anything for votes.
That's literally every politician's job.
No it's not. It's literally every politicians job to represent the people in their riding by engaging with them often to know what the majority of people want and then doing that.
That isn't what they do however and we as citizens don't hold them accountable for it.
"No it's not" then proceeds to explain how it is.
Ok.
Should I slow it down for you so you don't get so confused? I know it's hard to differentiate between two statements and interpret all the words properly.
People were foolish enough to give the liberals and conservatives enough seats for a majority so we’re going to lose a lot.