In perhaps his most disappointing policy announcement thus far, Carney has indicated he will scrap the Liberal’s plan to increase the capital gains inclusion rate. This mildly progressive measure was directed squarely at the passive incomes of the wealthiest sliver of Canadians and would have served as a healthy revenue generator. Instead, it’s destined for the scrapheap.
Agreed. The recent Canadaland episode highlights this pretty well. I don’t know how out of context the audio snippets of Carney’s answers about his blind trusts are but he needs to do better and not just better than PP.
We’ll see with time.
The “you need to look within yourself” line was not a good look: it’s a reporter’s job to question, and it’s a politician’s job to answer reasonable questions. Hopefully he’ll
be less of a jerkanswer politely next time.I’m holding out for the policy release, and hoping that the Liberals have decent answers to the cost of living and housing crisis.
I thought that line was great.
Barton had gone too far, from the swearing in ceremony complaining that 13/11 male female split was biased to demanding that implying with all rules isn’t sufficient and he’s only in this for the rich.
The question itself was accusatory. I’m so tired of this kind of politics.
It’s also a huge double standard. How can we trust Polievre to work for Canada when he has significant rental properties totalling more than Carneys stocks, and energy stocks that his policies would instantly boost? Why aren’t they asking if he will recuse himself from all housing and energy decisions?
And that’s not to say we should settle for the lowest standard, but putting hood assets in a blind trust should be considered good.
Journalists hold politicians to account, and ask them to justify their decisions. If journalists don’t ask accusatory questions, then they aren’t doing their job.
It’s totally reasonable to say that journalists should be harder on Poilievre, but that doesn’t mean they should stop asking Carney questions.
My perspective is that I don’t think the attacks on Carney are warranted, a lot of them feel unreasonable and unrealistic.
If Carney’s assets are in a blind trust, he can’t list them. If they’re in a blind trust it doesn’t matter what he owned 6 months ago, because the trust may have reallocated some or all of those assets already.
The question really is “how are you enriching yourself at our expense” and honestly I do agree that journalists need to look at themselves here. I am not hearing these questions about the other side of the aisle that they’re trying to see “unbiased” towards. And that doesn’t mean that asking Carney questions has to stop, but I’m getting fed up with the coverage.