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.
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.
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.