I've pulled together an article that brings together two very different thinkers talking about issues of relevance to the Prime Minister's reform of the civil service.
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2025
32 points (97.1% liked)
CanadaPolitics
2871 readers
16 users here now
Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In general you make a good point. I suppose in some cases it would be possible to cut costs and increase service.
Unfortunately, Carney is committed to dramatically increase spending but not taxation. I don't know much about how he views things like wealth stratification but as someone who has been involved in politics I do know politicians have to support crazy stuff to get elected.
We were in a nasty place before the last election and stuck having to choose between Carney and Milhouse while the orange goof threatened our existence. As I said in the article, I don't know what Carney wants or plans on doing, but I do believe we should expect more from our civil services and I don't think the real problem is lack of funds.
Carney did not run on tripling the military budget, nor did he run on slashing 15% from the public service.
He didn't run on cancelling the DST, nor cutting the CBC.
Those facts alone should be enough to oppose these cuts just on principle.
And we don't have a US electoral system. We did not "choose between Carney and [Poilievre]", we elected local MPs. Carney didn't have to "support crazy stuff to get elected", because ha's not dependent on multi-million-dollar dark money PAC funding.
Anyway, you didn't really address my question.