To me a party that says they’re going to look at the options objectively and pick the best from each side is appealing.
For the most part Canada is pretty great, there are a lot of things that I don’t think need radical changes. Of course I do want radical changes where needed (say fixes to our healthcare, disability systems, etc).
“Each side” is the issue - this party is going to let the conversation be driven by existing parties rather than any objective thinking. It’s leaving the conversation to be defined by the hegemonic political machines. So I expect nothing new. Another party of business as usual.
Sure, Canada’s doing great but we’re driving off a cliff in many respects. Once the ground gives out we’re gonna have a bad time.
“Each side” doesn’t have to mean a little from the liberal column, a little from the conservative column but only what’s on the table, there doesn’t have to be a restriction to the already suggested ideas.
I do think overall they’ll be a status quo party in the major structural areas (i.e. our capitalist democracy).
At the same time things like a refactoring of our tax code from the ground up sounds like a great opportunity to deal with a ton of issues, especially affecting the inequality front. Of course it can go the other way, witch is why if like to see now of where they’re going.
Same goes for climate guidelines – we had the liberals apply the conservative solution of a carbon tax, then continuously ignore the actual price pressures and related grants they needed to apply to get results. If this new party is serious about applying known solutions, they’ll keep the carbon tax and crank it up to apply real pressures on our industry for the environment.
It seems clear to me that one part of every problem is framing it correctly, the next is finding solutions to it. If they keep honest about applying objective solutions, I think they can make a big difference instead of toeing the red vs blue rhetorical lines.
What is so wrong with that though?
To me a party that says they’re going to look at the options objectively and pick the best from each side is appealing.
For the most part Canada is pretty great, there are a lot of things that I don’t think need radical changes. Of course I do want radical changes where needed (say fixes to our healthcare, disability systems, etc).
“Each side” is the issue - this party is going to let the conversation be driven by existing parties rather than any objective thinking. It’s leaving the conversation to be defined by the hegemonic political machines. So I expect nothing new. Another party of business as usual.
Sure, Canada’s doing great but we’re driving off a cliff in many respects. Once the ground gives out we’re gonna have a bad time.
I don’t know that to be true yet.
“Each side” doesn’t have to mean a little from the liberal column, a little from the conservative column but only what’s on the table, there doesn’t have to be a restriction to the already suggested ideas.
I do think overall they’ll be a status quo party in the major structural areas (i.e. our capitalist democracy).
At the same time things like a refactoring of our tax code from the ground up sounds like a great opportunity to deal with a ton of issues, especially affecting the inequality front. Of course it can go the other way, witch is why if like to see now of where they’re going.
Same goes for climate guidelines – we had the liberals apply the conservative solution of a carbon tax, then continuously ignore the actual price pressures and related grants they needed to apply to get results. If this new party is serious about applying known solutions, they’ll keep the carbon tax and crank it up to apply real pressures on our industry for the environment.
It seems clear to me that one part of every problem is framing it correctly, the next is finding solutions to it. If they keep honest about applying objective solutions, I think they can make a big difference instead of toeing the red vs blue rhetorical lines.