“What we’re looking to do with all the tools we have is to catalyze building of this economy. If there are some assets that the federal government has that can help with that process, we’ll look at it as part of a comprehensive approach,” Carney said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When it comes to selling off public assets like power, water, phones and public transport, Labour have nothing on the Thatcher era Tories.

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

True, and Carney's definitely showing shades of emulating that further (including quietly passed policies that fit more into Conservative anti-immigrant scapegoating), but my point is that today's Labour under Starmer compares well to Carney's Liberals in how they (in my opinion, deliberately) encouraged the misunderstanding among voters that they would deliver more centrist to centre-left style of governance. (I know the LPC traditionally had the reputation of campaigning like the NDP and governing like Conservatives, but this case is more extreme than ever before.) For example, no one expects to see Pierre Poilievre or any CPC politician on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. So many Canadians vote on vibes, and that appearance signalled a certain ballpark expectation to Canadians that doesn't seem to be materializing in the majority LPC government (when we should most expect it). Multiple Carney speeches and even online communications by cabinet officials seem to continue set the same misleading expectation.

Conservatives are nearly dead in the UK probably because people hated austerity so much. Now Labour are following them. Carney seems to think that if he keeps using left-leaning language to refer to blatantly right-wing policies, he can keep people fooled indefinitely.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

seems to think that if he keeps using left-leaning language to refer to blatantly right-wing policies, he can keep people fooled indefinitely.

i mean...it works apparently so why stop?

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf 4 points 1 day ago

I think a lot of this goes back to the Clinton and Blair "third way" nonsense. They tried to thread the needle of convincing working people that they were on their side while also reassuring capital that their wealth hoarding would be allowed to continue. You can't serve two masters but that doesn't stop them trying and Starmer is currently doing very badly in part because of their prevaricating, he's just not trustworthy.

Meanwhile electorates get more polarized as more and more people realize they've been hoodwinked and jump to very different conclusions - could it be that the wealthy are not willing to pay their fair share or could it all be the fault of some immigrants?