It's the opposite of what you'd be doing if you wanted the system to function correctly... But what if you didn't? Because you wanted to replace it, but it was dangerous to say that out loud?
The Conservatives (and to some extent some Liberals as well) have been playing a long game -- since the 70s when it was introduced -- to get rid of medicare.
It's incredibly popular with Canadians as a whole, but if you take conservative leadership aside, get them drunk, and get them to speak honestly ... they want it gone. Or at the very least, severely curtailed and a private option introduced.
Klein tried to do it in Alberta in the 90s (bring in more extensive private services) and the feds (under Chretien) beat him back in the courts. But now they're getting quite open again about it in both Alberta and Ontario and pitching it as a solution to a crisis. A crisis they helped creat.
EDIT: again, I think the system needs reforming. But likely not the way they want it reformed.
I'm still an outsider (recent immigrant to Canada) but my impression of right vs left politicians here reminds me very much of Dems vs Reps in the US.
When the right obtains power, they incrementally and consistently put the pieces in place to ensure that the quality of gov-provided services decreases over time. Then when the left obtains power, they simply maintain status quo, never improving or fixing the problems created by the previous administration.
And of course, we have issues where practically no one shows up to vote and a widely-disliked premier gets a majority government, a premier who will continue to ensure the gov-funded options get worse.
> When the right obtains power, they incrementally and consistently put the pieces in place to ensure that the quality of gov-provided services decreases over time.
My favourite was when one promised 'fiscal restraint' and no deficits, so they sold off a 99y lease on a tolled highway to plug their deficit. They promised prices wouldn't go up more than 30% in 15 years, but they went up 200%.
While your point about aircraft landings is funny, I'm guessing general aviation in Canada is similar to that of the US. It's not really uncommon for planes to land on highways in the US. Even busy ones. It just isn't very interesting to be honest, so no one makes much point about it. I think the FAA publishes numbers on that sort of thing.
You're missing the point. The 40x series highways around Toronto are some of the most gridlocked transportation networks in North America. I believe often ranking worse than LA or Atlanta etc etc. The 401 is pretty much bumper to bumper every single day all day except maybe at like 3am.
The 407 toll route the author is describing takes basically the same route as the gridlocked 401. The toll on the highway is insanely high, probably 10 x higher than anything you'll see in the US on any of the EZpass etc type routes. If you were to take it end to end (100ish km or 60 miles, maybe a 45 minute or 1 hour drive tops) you'd probably be paying at least $60 CAD or so.
Because it's so high, it's essentially vacant large parts of the day.
Yes planes can land on highways and do so all the time. The point is that the only highway they could do that on in the GTA is the 407. Because it's priced so insanely high.
And that money is going straight into private sector bank accounts, not into public coffers.
I've been around Toronto and agree: the roads are mostly parking lots. I actually wonder if the low average speed reduces the cost of maintenance since the roadway should be less worn.
But aren't tolls meant to be set high enough to discourage their use? Otherwise the average travel time on them would be about the same as the untolled route.
The 407 could likely handle 3, 4 times the capacity it holds right now.
I don't know what the elasticity situation and supply/demand looks like for that highway. I can guarantee you that the owners do, and they've set it accordingly to accomplish their goals ($$). But not necessarily the goals the benefit the city.
For me it's the difference between being able to work at certain employers in the west end of the GTA vs not. The fee, paid daily, would be a big nope to me. And I'm upper middle class.
Ah alright, that makes discussion of this rather complicated. We don't really know what the road would have ever looked like when completed by the Canadian government.
In the U.S., it was the left that got rid of the civil service exam.
My guess is, rules that make life harder for teachers, such as ongoing education requirements, also tend to come from some wing of the Democratic Party.
I am just trying to give some examples and not make some grand claim; I think both sides do a lot to make governance ineffective when they don’t want that kind of governance, or are having a bout of manic stupidity.
I think you're giving a lot more benefit of the doubt to the Liberals (and US Democrats) than you should.
You're assuming they have wildly different aims. But I don't think history has borne that out. If you want to know why they're so tepid and inept in their opposition to the right and far right, it's because there's not enough of a substantial difference in fundamental direction and policy. (And liberals are on the whole conceptually unable to mobilize in a populist way because they distrust mass politics.)
Yes, on the cultural issues front there's substantial disagreement. Though less so in Canada where there's more of a socially liberal consensus.
But on the economic and political side of things, it's not clear to me that there's a strong ideological dividing line here.
Both are roughly in favour of the same neo-liberal economics. Private sector == good, low corporate taxes == good. Essentially supply side conformity.
But both are responsive to different bases.
The Liberals in Canada cannot move against social programs at this time, or cut social spending broadly -- but they absolutely have done so in the past. The Chretien Liberals enacted the most brutal austerity initiative in Canadian history, and in fact one of the most drastic in the entire G7.
At this point, the Liberals broadly support a kind of neo-Keynesian aggressive social spending. But I'd argue that this is not based on fundamental principles, but based on their need to acquire votes and to squeeze out the NDP. With inflation and various budget indicators being what they are, I am pretty sure the Liberals are prone to leaning back into an austerity direction ... if the NDP vote were to collapse completely, like it did in 1993 (down to 9 seats its worst performance ever), you can pretty much bet the LPC would be back to massive budget cuts. And I think Singh is taking the NDP in that direction, so.
I think you'll have a hard time seeing a strong economic policy differentiation between Harper's Conservatives and Trudeau's Liberals. (Or McGuinty/Wynne and Ford) Both responded with intensive social "stimulus" spending in economic crisis (2008 & 2020 respectively). Both used debt as a tool in a massive way. Neither side showed serious fiscal restraint. Both sides have kept a massively low corporate tax rate (one of the lowest in the western world and drastically lower than the "right wing" USA) Both favoured policies that pumped up the real estate market. Both had aggressive immigration and temporary foreign worker programs. etc etc.
... And both directed their spending at their respective voting bases in a way that verged on corruption (Harper threw money at Alberta in a huge way, Trudeau more in central Canada).
The basic fundamental difference between the two at this point boils down to which sector of Canadian capitalism they represent. The Conservatives are 100% aligned on the energy sector and its demands, and the ideological banners erected in its name in Alberta (along with all the climate change pseudo-denial/defeatism that goes with that). The Liberals represent different interests, some regional to QC, some of it sector-based (real estate & manufacturing). None of it altruistic, or principled, and none of it truly pan-Canadian.
Excellent summary. Might be worth noting that even if a party arose that wanted to make significant economic changes they'd be dealing with US and international finance interests that would make that very difficult, and we are probably stuck in the same political rut that US citizens find themselves: economic and material change is not really on the table for any party. You just get to pick your flavor of social stance and the general economic sector the little money that does come gets directed to (urban/real-estate or rural/oil). We're baked into the international religion of the holy free market, same as everyone else.
Hey, if you object to privatizing healthcare, why do you hate the free market? Don't you think that private healthcare and insurance companies should be able to skim billions of dollars off the top of all health-related spending? Are you some kind of commie?
In reality what we have in Canada is already like that to some extent. Doctor's clinics are private businesses. And they bill the government. Yes the terms of that are fixed (and continually under dispute.) But the profit taking and skimming absolutely happens. Just that, unlike the US, there's a single public payer of it.
It ain't socialism. Parts of it may look like it, but most parts do not (unless your definition of socialism is "guvernm'nt does stuff", which is silly).
It's also not working particularly well right now.
>Don't you think that private healthcare and insurance companies should be able to skim billions of dollars off the top of all health-related spending?
The drug companies and medical supply companies already do that whether or not healthcare is "private". We need a massive overhaul of the patent system if we ever want to bring down the cost of healthcare.
Same playbook in every Western country, with a long game from very deep pocket interests. Inevitable declining force barring a resurgence of power in democracy against capital - i.e. a change in our voting system, which will forever be locked to a 2/3 party system which is easily captured.
The business idea behind the salary cap is to make budgeting more predictable. If the budget is $X and you need a staff of Y, your salary cap of $X/Y makes it easier to manage... in theory.
In reality, if $X/Y is low, then you can't find anyone who will work at that rate and you either have to cut back services or outsource (which is often in a different budget - see traveling nurses).
It is the opposite of what should be done, but if you're trying to fit things into a fixed budget then it is what must be done. The way to fix it is to get the budget to expand up to what is needed to supply services. That is a difficult sell in the public sector.
