Responding to a Reddit comment:
Cutting environmental regulations, cutting food safety, attacking privacy rights, attacking reconciliation, cutting healthcare, and now looking to go after labour rights.
If we went back a year and explained all of Carney’s record to voters then how many of these “strategic” voters would actually be able to guess who won? Because stopping these were the reasons everyone had to vote for Carney and prevent Poilievre from winning. Yet, all it did was guarantee them.
Knowing what I do today, I would have… still voted for Carney.
Casting a vote for Poilievre was basically selling out the country to MAGA. Casting a vote for Jagmeet was not a serious vote. Most of what Carney has done has been positive. A number of things have not been – which is par for the course from a Liberal government and why I usually support the NDP.
As I’ve said before in this forum, Avi has to extend his role beyond that of a reactive critic and to set out an alternative policy lane as a potential government in waiting. Now he has three years to do this, which is enough time if it’s not wasted chasing likes and ragebait. The anti-surveillance-pricing issue he raised was a good initiative.
This isn’t. Simply criticizing public sector cuts and attaching tech does not an alternative make. In three years, how would he rebuild the food inspection service? How will he ensure we are on track to monitor it to register the impact of Carney’s policy? Is there a serious consideration of how new tech night make a difference anywhere in NDP policy?
Don’t just piggyback on an Agriculture Union campaign to oppose public service cuts. Include it, sure – it would be irresponsible not to. But proper leadership means working with all those involved around an issue – Avi should have included voices from consumer groups, farmers’ representatives, and public health workers. Many people have a voice on this – the political party’s role is to bring them together, find the common thread, and amplify it.
The Bluesky tweets are boring and lazy. The party should take it’s time, build expertise and policy around issues, and clearly set out a plan.