Federal cabinet ministers are being asked to find … ways to reduce program spending by 7.5 per cent in the fiscal year that begins April 1, 2026, followed by 10 per cent in savings the next year and 15 per cent in the 2028-29 fiscal year.

I’m getting 90s vibes. Government cutbacks, threats of separation, climate change. It’s all here.

But there’s a modern twist: we’re talking about 3C change in 2100, there’s a housing crisis, our media landscape is dominated by tech bros, and the US is lost in the culture wars.

archive

“You will be expected to bring forward ambitious savings proposals to spend less on the day-to-day running of government, and invest more in building a strong, united Canadian economy,” Mr. Champagne wrote in one of the letters.

So cuts to the public service and services to fund loans/giveaways to the private sector.

“Through this ambitious review each minister should examine the programs and activities in their portfolio to determine which are: meeting their objectives, are core to the federal mandate, and complement versus duplicate what is offered elsewhere by the federal government or by other levels of government,” it states.

Anyone who has been through a round of layoffs recognizes this language. All it’s missing is a need to find “efficiencies”. Carney is looking less and less like the genius economy understander I was told he was and more and more like a bog standard orthodox Friedmanite.

That’s what many of his left-leaning detractors have said. Unsurprisingly, the central banker is a dyed in the wool neoliberal who wants to trim government spending while shoveling money towards the private sector to grow the economy. Maybe wealth will finally trickle down this time.

The annoying thing is that for a lot of his voters it seems like his decisions have been surprising. I’m seeing a lot of, “trust the plan,” sort of comments elsewhere like this is all leading to some bait-and-switch social democratic turn. I think the Liberal campaign didn’t focus on his fiscal orthodoxy and a lot of people just projected whatever they wanted him to be onto him.

I think people didn’t vote for Carny as much as against PP. It’s a bit sad that he is following the old playbook.

The annoying thing is that for a lot of his voters it seems like his decisions have been surprising. I’m seeing a lot of, “trust the plan,” sort of comments elsewhere like this is all leading to some bait-and-switch social democratic turn. I think the Liberal campaign didn’t focus on his fiscal orthodoxy and a lot of people just projected whatever they wanted him to be onto him.

That’s what many of his left-leaning detractors have said. Unsurprisingly, the central banker is a dyed in the wool neoliberal who wants to trim government spending while shoveling money towards the private sector to grow the economy. Maybe wealth will finally trickle down this time.

Federal cabinet ministers are being asked to find … ways to reduce program spending by 7.5 per cent in the fiscal year that begins April 1, 2026, followed by 10 per cent in savings the next year and 15 per cent in the 2028-29 fiscal year.

I’m getting 90s vibes. Government cutbacks, threats of separation, climate change. It’s all here.

But there’s a modern twist: we’re talking about 3C change in 2100, there’s a housing crisis, our media landscape is dominated by tech bros, and the US is lost in the culture wars.

archive

I think people didn’t vote for Carny as much as against PP. It’s a bit sad that he is following the old playbook.

There is a silver lining in giving the NDP a wake-up call. Hopefully they can manage to have an actionable platform soon.

“You will be expected to bring forward ambitious savings proposals to spend less on the day-to-day running of government, and invest more in building a strong, united Canadian economy,” Mr. Champagne wrote in one of the letters.

So cuts to the public service and services to fund loans/giveaways to the private sector.

“Through this ambitious review each minister should examine the programs and activities in their portfolio to determine which are: meeting their objectives, are core to the federal mandate, and complement versus duplicate what is offered elsewhere by the federal government or by other levels of government,” it states.

Anyone who has been through a round of layoffs recognizes this language. All it’s missing is a need to find “efficiencies”. Carney is looking less and less like the genius economy understander I was told he was and more and more like a bog standard orthodox Friedmanite.

There is no problem so bad it could not have been made worse with Polievre.

“You will be expected to bring forward ambitious savings proposals to spend less on the day-to-day running of government, and invest more in building a strong, united Canadian economy,” Mr. Champagne wrote in one of the letters.

So cuts to the public service and services to fund loans/giveaways to the private sector.

“Through this ambitious review each minister should examine the programs and activities in their portfolio to determine which are: meeting their objectives, are core to the federal mandate, and complement versus duplicate what is offered elsewhere by the federal government or by other levels of government,” it states.

Anyone who has been through a round of layoffs recognizes this language. All it’s missing is a need to find “efficiencies”. Carney is looking less and less like the genius economy understander I was told he was and more and more like a bog standard orthodox Friedmanite.

Carney is looking less and less like the genius economy understander I was told he was and more and more like a bog standard orthodox Friedmanite. politician

I liked Jagmeet, and the NDP platform (well what i understood of it), if i wasn’t worried that PP would get in they would have gotten my vote. I did feel that he didn’t stand a chance of getting in.

I did read Carney’s book (values), i found it extremely difficult to read, and said a lot without saying anything. I don’t think he would get my vote if not for PP.

I’d like to see a rule that any politician voted in must work in an aid camp in a warzone to be elegable for office. Or maybe spend a year as an average citizen in their country.

Jagmeet was a nice enough person, but his communication never seemed to be about making changes, only criticising the other parties. It’s possible I missed the more constructive messages, but the constant tearing down in political messaging is why I don’t ingest much of it. NDP would also be my choice (outside of a spoiler situation), but the default answer isn’t very inspiring.

FPTP isn’t the only fucked up voting issue we have though, as the vote for leader also affected so many local representatives, and I thing that’s where the NDP is currently strongest. Losing local reps is a sad price for opposing a national lunatic.

I’ve thoughs about similar restrictions to bring high-level politicians down to Earth. Hard limits to effective income from all sources of perhaps 2.5x minimum wage. Six months of consecutive retail or food service work.