Well, well, well… looks like Manchester United are getting a taste of what we Geordies had to put up with for 14 years under Mike Ashley. Cost-cutting, redundancies, and a general sense that the people running the club see it as more of a financial spreadsheet than a football institution. Welcome to the world of being treated like a “brand” instead of a football club, lads. How’s it feel?
Sir Jim Ratcliffe has come in swinging the axe, with up to 200 staff members getting their marching orders. Free staff meals? Gone. Perks? Vanished. At this rate, the poor sods still employed will be fighting over who gets to lick the spoon in the staff canteen. But don’t worry, there’s “performance-linked incentives” to keep morale up—because nothing motivates an underpaid, overworked employee quite like the vague promise of a bonus that’ll never arrive.
All of this while Man U, a club that rakes in cash like a dodgy bookie, somehow keeps posting financial losses. Turns out that when you spend billions on panic-buys and bloated wages without much thought, it eventually catches up with you. And now, instead of solving the root of the problem, Ratcliffe is going full “Sports Direct” and slashing costs like a man trying to save a sinking ship with a teaspoon.
Now, us Newcastle fans have seen this movie before. Mike Ashley had us running on a skeleton crew, refusing to spend properly while still expecting us to be grateful for the privilege of existing. For years, we were stuck in football purgatory, watching bargain-bin signings and uninspiring football while the club’s bank account got fatter. Sound familiar, United fans? Aye, we thought so.
The difference is, we got out of it. Ashley’s gone, and now we’ve got owners who actually want to win things—imagine that! Meanwhile, Man United are looking more and more like a club stuck in the past, desperately trying to cut costs while pretending they’re still the big boys. If they’re not careful, Old Trafford will start looking as lifeless as St James’ Park did in the Ashley years. But hey, at least their staff will have plenty of room in the canteen now.
Germany’s federal election has sent ripples across Europe, highlighting both the challenges and the resilience of the continent’s democratic institutions. In a tightly contested race, the conservative CDU/CSU, led by Friedrich Merz, secured a narrow victory, while the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) achieved its most significant post-war result, gaining nearly 19.5% of the vote. This outcome underscores a growing political divide in Germany, but also reaffirms the enduring strength of its democratic processes. Despite fears of radicalism, mainstream parties have reaffirmed their commitment to upholding democratic norms, with Merz explicitly ruling out any coalition with the AfD.
The election was precipitated by the collapse of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition government, a victim of economic stagnation and internal disputes. While the Social Democrats (SPD) suffered their worst post-war result, the stability of Germany’s institutions ensures that the country remains a pillar of the European project. The transition to new leadership will undoubtedly come with challenges, but Germany’s role as a leading economic and political force within the EU remains unshaken.
Far-right rhetoric has gained traction in some regions, fueled by concerns over immigration and economic uncertainty. However, this trend is counterbalanced by the resilience of the European Union itself. The EU has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to navigate political turbulence among member states, acting as a stabilizing force that prioritizes economic strength, security, and democratic governance. The Franco-German alliance, while facing strains, remains central to European cohesion, and President Emmanuel Macron has been vocal about the need for stronger European integration to counter populist forces.
Transatlantic relations add another layer of complexity to the European political landscape. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has introduced unpredictability, particularly regarding U.S. support for Ukraine and potential economic policy shifts that could impact European markets. However, rather than weakening the EU, these external pressures have only reinforced the bloc’s determination to assert its independence on key issues such as defense, energy, and trade. Macron and other European leaders have continued to push for greater strategic autonomy, ensuring that Europe is not overly reliant on shifting U.S. policies.
Europe’s path to stability lies in its ability to reinforce its institutions, deepen cooperation among member states, and address the root causes of public discontent. By strengthening the European Commission’s role in economic planning, expanding security initiatives such as PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation), and implementing policies that promote inclusive economic growth, the EU can effectively counter the rise of extremism and maintain its position as a global leader in democratic governance.
Update Since writing this piece, Friedrich Merz has spoken about a stronger, integrated EU, that can look after itself without assistance from the USA, and the possibility of exploring a European Defence Force outside of NATO.
BRICS has evolved from an economic alliance into a geopolitical force challenging Western dominance. Originally conceived as a framework for cooperation among emerging markets, the bloc now pursues a strategic agenda that threatens the global order long shaped by Europe and North America. By fostering economic interdependence, promoting financial independence, and expanding its diplomatic influence, BRICS is positioning itself as a counterweight to Western-led institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and NATO. Its rise signals a shift toward a multipolar world where U.S. and European dominance is no longer assured.
At the core of BRICS’ strategy is economic cooperation aimed at reducing reliance on Western markets and financial institutions. Trade agreements and joint investment projects among Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa strengthen internal resilience while offering developing nations an alternative to the West’s economic model. The New Development Bank (NDB) plays a key role, financing infrastructure and sustainability projects without the political conditions often attached to Western aid. This economic realignment is further reinforced by BRICS’ push to de-dollarize global trade, insulating its members from U.S. financial influence and sanctions. By increasing the use of local currencies and developing alternatives to SWIFT, BRICS is actively undermining the dollar’s global dominance. If oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia shift toward BRICS’ financial system, the petrodollar system could face serious disruption, weakening the U.S. economy and limiting Washington’s ability to leverage economic power as a foreign policy tool.
For Europe, BRICS represents a different kind of challenge. While not as dependent on the dollar, the EU’s economic model relies on stable access to global markets, raw materials, and energy. BRICS’ growing control over critical resources—such as rare earth minerals, oil, and food supplies—poses risks to European industry. Russia and China have already demonstrated a willingness to use trade as a geopolitical weapon, and as BRICS strengthens its economic ties, European access to these resources could become more costly and politically conditional. Additionally, BRICS’ growing influence in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East threatens Europe’s traditional soft power approach in these regions. By providing loans and investments without Western-style conditions, BRICS is offering an appealing alternative to nations wary of IMF-imposed austerity. This shift weakens Europe’s ability to shape international policies and erodes its influence in regions it has long considered strategic.
Beyond economics, BRICS is reshaping global diplomacy by advocating for a multipolar world. The bloc frequently aligns its positions in the UN, G20, and WTO, pushing for reforms that reduce Western dominance. By expanding its membership to include emerging economies across the Global South, BRICS is creating a parallel alliance network that enables countries to resist Western pressure. The potential inclusion of Iran and other anti-Western regimes raises concerns about a new axis of influence that could counterbalance NATO and other Western-led security alliances. While BRICS is not yet a military pact, growing defense cooperation—particularly between Russia and China—suggests that security coordination could become more structured over time.
Technology is another battleground where BRICS threatens Western leadership. China and India are emerging as global tech powerhouses, while Russia excels in cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. If BRICS nations successfully develop independent digital ecosystems—ranging from payment systems to semiconductor industries—Western tech companies may lose access to key markets. The push for BRICS-led internet infrastructure could also fragment global digital governance, reducing the West’s ability to shape online policies and monitor cyber threats. Meanwhile, BRICS’ emphasis on state sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs provides an ideological alternative to the Western model of governance. As more nations align with this approach, the ability of the U.S. and Europe to promote democracy, human rights, and free-market policies could diminish.
BRICS is not just an economic alliance, but a structural challenge to the Western-led world order. By advancing financial independence, expanding geopolitical influence, and fostering technological self-sufficiency, the bloc is steadily eroding the dominance of Western institutions. While internal divisions and logistical hurdles remain, BRICS’ trajectory suggests that Europe and North America must adapt to a world where their influence is no longer guaranteed. Whether the West engages with BRICS on more equal terms or resists and risks further global fragmentation will determine the shape of international relations in the years to come.
Canada has long been defined by its vast natural resources, exporting raw commodities like oil, lumber, minerals, and agricultural products to its largest trading partner, the United States. This resource-based economy has created prosperity, but left Canada vulnerable to global market fluctuations and overreliance on one major partner. Imagine, however, a seismic shift where Canada halts raw commodity exports to the U.S. and reorients its economy toward value-added manufacturing, inspired by Germany’s renowned industrial model. Such a transformation could redefine Canada’s role in the global economy, fostering innovation, diversification, and resilience.
The cornerstone of this strategy would be transitioning away from the sale of unprocessed resources. Instead of exporting crude oil, Canada could refine it domestically into high-quality petrochemical products, such as plastics and specialty chemicals. Similarly, rather than selling raw lumber, the country could invest in producing engineered wood products, furniture, and prefabricated housing materials. By processing these materials at home, Canada would capture greater value from its resources, create high-skilled jobs, and reduce economic dependency on the United States.
The shift to manufacturing would require a robust focus on innovation, supported by substantial investment in research and development (R&D). Germany’s manufacturing success is largely driven by its Mittelstand—small and medium-sized enterprises specializing in precision engineering, machinery, and high-quality goods. Canada could emulate this approach by fostering clusters of specialized industries in areas such as green energy technology, robotics, and medical devices. Government incentives, tax breaks, and public-private partnerships could nurture these industries and position Canada as a global leader in advanced manufacturing.
Education and workforce development would play a crucial role in this transformation. Canada’s universities and technical colleges would need to prioritize programs in engineering, technology, and applied sciences. Skilled trades would also need to be elevated in prestige and supported through apprenticeships and certification programs, ensuring a steady supply of talent for emerging industries. Drawing inspiration from Germany’s dual education system, which integrates classroom learning with practical experience, Canada could create a workforce tailored to the demands of a high-tech manufacturing economy.
While transitioning to a manufacturing-based economy, Canada would also strengthen its global trade relationships, reducing reliance on the U.S. market. Trade agreements with the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) nations, and emerging markets in Africa and Asia would be leveraged to expand exports of Canadian-made goods. This diversification would provide stability in the face of economic or political disruptions in any one region.
Environmental sustainability would underpin this economic transformation. With global demand shifting toward eco-friendly products, Canada’s manufacturing sector could focus on producing green technologies, such as electric vehicles, renewable energy infrastructure, and energy-efficient building materials. These industries would not only align with Canada’s climate commitments but also tap into growing markets worldwide.
However, such a dramatic shift would not be without challenges. Significant upfront investment, trade tensions with the U.S., and resistance from established industries would need to be managed. Yet the long-term benefits—a diversified, innovative, and resilient economy—would far outweigh the short-term obstacles.
By embracing value-added manufacturing, Canada could break free from its resource-dependent past and secure a prosperous, sustainable future. This shift would allow the country to redefine its economic identity, becoming not just a supplier of raw materials but a global leader in high-quality, innovative goods.
Ever feel like your life is an endless RSVP? Invitations roll in: “Come to this event! Join me for that activity! Let’s grab a drink!” It’s lovely to be included, truly. But what’s less lovely are the interrogations that follow when I politely decline.
“What are you doing instead?” “Are you feeling okay?” “Wait… who’s more important than me?”
Ah, the joys of boundary-setting in a world that thrives on FOMO and social expectations.
This isn’t my first rodeo with the honesty vs. transparency debate, but today I want to shift the focus. It’s not about what I say to others – it’s about how I choose to live my daily life. For me, it’s far simpler (and far more satisfying) to opt in when I genuinely want to connect than to constantly opt out to preserve my space.
If the world were a little more straightforward, I’d label my lifestyle as that of a Solo Polyamorous Relationship Anarchist (or SoPoRA for short). What does that mean? It’s a big mouthful, sure, but at its core, it’s a fancy way of saying I value my autonomy and independence while cherishing meaningful, non-hierarchical connections with others.
Solo Polyamory is all about embracing the beauty of being my own primary partner, while maintaining multiple, consensual relationships. It’s not about having less love – it’s about loving without turning my life into a game of musical chairs, where one partner automatically claims the “primary” seat.
And Relationship Anarchism? That’s the freedom to reject societal scripts about how relationships should work. No automatic rankings of romantic partners above friends. No forcing connections into neat little boxes labeled “partner,” “friend,” or “fling.” Instead, each relationship is uniquely crafted based on mutual agreement and organic growth.
Now, before you picture me as some lone wolf prowling around in emotional isolation, let me clarify: this choice doesn’t mean I don’t value connection – it just means I thrive on creating it without compromising my independence.
But what this looks like practically, I hear you ask? Well, I love my space – my home is my sanctuary, and it’s where I recharge. I set firm personal boundaries to maintain my autonomy – this isn’t selfish – it’s self-care. Communication is my superpower – I prioritize honesty, consent, and mutual understanding with anyone I’m involved with.
Solo Polyamory and Relationship Anarchism require a level of self-awareness and emotional intelligence that can feel like a full-time job some days. But the rewards? Oh, they’re worth it. There’s a joy in living authentically, in crafting connections that adapt as people grow, and in knowing every “yes” you give is genuine.
So, the next time I politely decline an invitation, know this: it’s not about you. It’s about me choosing to live a life that feels full, free, and fulfilling – one beautifully crafted, consensual connection at a time.
The Canadian government’s announcement of Alto, a new high-speed rail network linking Toronto and Quebec City, marks a watershed moment in the nation’s transportation history. This 1,000-kilometer electrified corridor will connect major urban centers while slashing travel times, with trains reaching speeds of up to 300 km/h. The journey from Toronto to Montreal, currently a grueling five-hour trip by rail, will be cut to just three hours, making it a direct competitor to short-haul flights. More than just a transportation project, Alto represents a long-overdue commitment to sustainable, efficient public infrastructure—one that could reshape how Canadians move between their largest cities.
Canada has been here before, at least in theory. The dream of high-speed rail has surfaced repeatedly over the decades, only to be shelved due to shifting political priorities, economic downturns, or a lack of public and private investment. In the 1960s, CN’s TurboTrain attempted to bring high-speed service to the Montreal-Toronto corridor, but despite its impressive top speed of 225 km/h, it was plagued by technical challenges and ultimately discontinued. Later, in the 1980s, Bombardier proposed a high-speed link between Quebec City and Windsor, but enthusiasm waned in the face of funding concerns and political inertia. Meanwhile, other nations surged ahead. France launched the TGV in 1981, Japan’s Shinkansen had already been running since 1964, and China rapidly built the world’s most extensive high-speed rail network. Canada, with its vast geography and car-dependent culture, lagged behind, leaving VIA Rail to struggle with aging rolling stock and shared freight tracks that made reliable service nearly impossible.
The Alto project signals a long-overdue course correction. The government has committed $3.9 billion over six years to develop the project, covering environmental assessments, land acquisition, Indigenous consultations, and detailed engineering work. The project’s scale makes it the largest infrastructure investment in Canadian history, with an estimated 51,000 jobs created during construction and a projected annual boost of $35 billion to the national GDP. The selected consortium, Cadence, brings together some of the most experienced transportation and infrastructure firms in the world, including CDPQ Infra, AtkinsRéalis, Keolis Canada, SYSTRA Canada, SNCF Voyageurs, and, notably, Air Canada. With SNCF’s involvement, Alto benefits from France’s decades of expertise operating one of the world’s most successful high-speed rail networks.
Air Canada’s participation in the Alto consortium is a strategic move that acknowledges the inevitable disruption high-speed rail will bring to the lucrative Toronto-Montreal air corridor. As one of the busiest short-haul routes in North America, this segment has long been a key profit driver for the airline, particularly in the premium business travel market. However, with Alto set to offer a three-hour city-center-to-city-center journey—eliminating the hassles of airport security, boarding delays, and weather disruptions—many travelers, especially corporate clients, may shift their loyalty to rail. Rather than resisting this change, Air Canada is positioning itself within the Alto project to maintain influence over intercity travel dynamics, potentially leveraging its expertise in ticketing, loyalty programs, and intermodal connectivity. By integrating rail service into its broader network, Air Canada can remain a key player in the evolving transportation landscape, offering seamless connections between domestic, international, and rail-based travel. This approach mirrors strategies seen in Europe and Asia, where major airlines partner with high-speed rail operators rather than compete head-on, ensuring they remain relevant as travel preferences evolve.
Beyond the economic and technical aspects, Alto represents a fundamental shift in how Canada approaches public transit. For decades, intercity travel has been dominated by cars and airplanes, both of which contribute heavily to congestion and carbon emissions. The Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor is one of the busiest in North America, yet for years, travelers have been forced to endure overcrowded highways, unreliable train schedules, or expensive, inconvenient air travel. High-speed rail changes the equation. Electrified trains eliminate the carbon footprint of regional flights, reducing overall transportation emissions in line with Canada’s climate goals. At the same time, by shifting travelers from cars to rail, Alto can alleviate highway congestion, making regional mobility smoother for everyone.
Connectivity is another major advantage. The Alto corridor isn’t just about linking Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec City—it’s also about providing a reliable transit spine for smaller communities like Peterborough and Trois-Rivières. For decades, these towns have struggled with limited or non-existent rail service, forcing residents to rely on personal vehicles or slow, infrequent buses. With high-speed rail, these regions stand to gain new economic opportunities, easier access to larger job markets, and increased tourism. Countries like France, Spain, and Japan have seen firsthand how high-speed rail can transform regional economies, bringing prosperity to areas once considered too remote to thrive.
At its core, the Alto project is a declaration that public transit is not just an afterthought, but a national priority. Efficient, well-funded public transportation is a hallmark of modern, forward-thinking societies, reducing economic inequality by making mobility accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford cars or flights. It also offers a more comfortable, humane travel experience—one where passengers can relax, work, or enjoy the scenery instead of navigating traffic or enduring the frustrations of airport line ups, and security checks.
Of course, the road ahead is not without obstacles. As my regular readers will know, I am not a fan of Public-Private Partnerships. Large-scale infrastructure projects in Canada have a history of delays, cost overruns, and political roadblocks. Public support, political will, and careful management will be critical in ensuring that Alto doesn’t become another shelved idea. If the government and its private-sector partners can deliver on their promises, however, Alto has the potential to redefine travel in Canada for generations to come.
For too long, Canadians have watched as other countries invested in the kind of fast, efficient, and sustainable transportation systems that make daily life easier. Now, with Alto, Canada finally has the chance to catch up. If done right, this project could mark the beginning of a new era—one where public transportation is recognized not just as a necessity, but as an engine of economic growth, environmental responsibility, and national connectivity.
I firmly believe in the right of 16 and 17 year old Canadians to vote. They are more than ready to shoulder this responsibility, and society already entrusts them with far greater challenges. Here’s why I support enfranchising them.
The Responsibilities They Already Bear At 16, young Canadians can obtain a driver’s license, manage the responsibilities of operating a vehicle, and comply with traffic laws. Many also join the workforce, contributing taxes that fund services without having a say in how those funds are spent. This taxation without representation runs counter to the principles of fairness in a democratic society.
Some 16 year olds live independently, taking full responsibility for their finances, households, and futures. These young people already make life-altering decisions, proving their ability to assess and manage complex situations.
They also have the legal right to make important healthcare decisions without parental consent in most provinces. From mental health treatments to reproductive choices, they show the capacity to evaluate critical issues. Moreover, the age of consent in Canada is 16, and in some cases, they can even join the military, committing themselves to a life of service and sacrifice. If we trust them with these decisions, why not trust them with a vote?
Their Political Awareness Critics say 16 year olds lack the maturity to vote, but that argument doesn’t hold water. Today’s youth are incredibly engaged with issues like climate change, education, and social justice. They organize protests, sign petitions, and participate in grassroots movements. They are not just passive observers; they are active participants in shaping their world.
Civics education in Canadian schools equips them with the knowledge to understand governance and the electoral process. Giving them the vote would deepen their connection to democracy, encouraging lifelong participation.
Looking at Other Democracies Canada wouldn’t be breaking new ground here. Countries like Austria, Brazil, and Scotland already allow 16 year olds to vote, and studies show these younger voters are as thoughtful and engaged as older ones. Early enfranchisement fosters a lifelong habit of voting, strengthening democratic systems for everyone.
A Voice for the Future
The decisions made today—on climate policy, education, and job creation—will define the futures of these young Canadians. Denying them a voice in these matters is short-sighted. They are the generation that will live with the long-term consequences of today’s elections.
It’s time we acknowledge the responsibilities and contributions of 16 year olds and empower them with the right to vote. They have proven their maturity and commitment to society. Including them in the democratic process would make Canada’s democracy stronger, more inclusive, and better prepared for the future.
Listen, I’ve been around the craft ale block a few times. I’ve tangoed with Tripels, slow-danced with Sours, and had a downright torrid affair with a English IPA back in ‘98; but let me tell you, Sawdust City’s LDV Red Rocket Spiced Imperial Espresso Stout isn’t just a beer – it’s a sultry, full-bodied seduction in a glass.
From the moment you pour it, you know you’re in for a special treat. That thick, luxurious head – tan, creamy, that’s just begging to be admired, as it settles atop the obsidian body, like a velvet robe slipping from the shoulders of an old Hollywood starlet. You don’t chug a beer like this; You sip it, you savor it, you let it whisper sweet nothings in your ear.
The first taste is an all-encompassing embrace – bold espresso wraps around rich, dark chocolate, like two lovers entangled on a silk sheet of roasted malt. And just when you think you’ve got it figured out, a wicked little cayenne spice sneaks up on you from behind, like a mischievous nibble on your earlobe. It’s just enough heat to wake up your senses without making you regret last night’s life choices.
The mouthfeel? Velvety, thick, indulgent – it doesn’t just coat your tongue, it makes itself at home. This stout has presence – it lingers. It leaves traces of vanilla and cinnamon in its wake, making you question whether it’s a beer, or some kind of dark, boozy necromancy.
At 9% ABV, Red Rocket isn’t just here for a casual chat – it’s leaning in close, making eye contact, and asking if you’d like to see the river deck view. And honestly? You do!
And as I sit here, utterly bewitched by Red Rocket’s bold embrace, I can’t help, but hope that the fine folks at Sawdust City have had the good sense to tuck some of this delicious liquid away in bourbon barrels, letting it slumber, and soak up the kind of oaky, boozy wisdom that only time can bestow. Because if Red Rocket is already this seductive, imagine what it could become after a slow, patient transformation into something even more decadent – a worthy new incarnation of Titania, their Queenly masterpiece!
Dwight D. Eisenhower’s economic policies reflected a deep commitment to fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets, and strategic government investment. Unlike his predecessors, who expanded federal programs through deficit spending, Eisenhower believed that long-term economic stability required careful financial management. His presidency oversaw a period of sustained growth, low inflation, and rising living standards, largely because he resisted both reckless tax cuts and unchecked federal expansion. Instead, he sought to create an economic environment where businesses could flourish under stable conditions while ensuring that the government maintained the resources necessary for national development.
A staunch advocate of balanced budgets, Eisenhower saw unchecked deficits as a threat to economic security. His administration achieved budget surpluses in three of his eight years, a remarkable feat given the pressures of Cold War military spending. While he faced pressure from both Congress and business leaders to reduce tax rates, he maintained high marginal taxes, including a top personal income tax rate of 91 percent. Corporate tax rates also remained high, but rather than focusing on cutting taxes as a means of stimulating growth, Eisenhower prioritized stability and investment. He understood that sustainable prosperity was best achieved not through short-term corporate windfalls but through a well-maintained economic infrastructure that supported long-term business expansion and job creation.
Perhaps his most lasting economic achievement was the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which launched the Interstate Highway System. Although justified as a national security measure, this massive infrastructure project became a cornerstone of economic growth, stimulating the construction industry, creating millions of jobs, and expanding the reach of commerce across the country. It also fueled the suburban boom of the postwar era, enabling businesses to reach new consumers and accelerating the rise of the American middle class. Unlike later presidents who pursued economic stimulus through tax cuts alone, Eisenhower demonstrated that government investment in national infrastructure could pay long-term dividends for both businesses and workers.
While defense spending remained a major priority, Eisenhower was careful to keep military expenditures in check, warning in his farewell address against the growing influence of the “military-industrial complex.” Though he believed in a strong national defense, he avoided costly foreign entanglements and sought to balance security needs with economic sustainability. His administration also made key investments in science and education, helping lay the groundwork for future technological advancements that would drive economic growth.
Eisenhower’s approach to economic management stands in stark contrast to that of Donald Trump, whose administration pursued aggressive tax cuts, particularly for corporations and the wealthy, under the belief that reducing government revenue would spur business expansion. While Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provided a temporary boost to growth, it also contributed to record-high deficits without the kind of long-term investment that characterized Eisenhower’s policies. Instead of cutting corporate taxes to unsustainable levels, Eisenhower used tax revenue to build infrastructure, strengthen education, and fund key government programs that benefited both businesses and workers. Trump, and indeed modern policymakers, could take a lesson from Eisenhower’s 1950s playbook by recognizing that real economic strength comes not just from slashing tax rates but from creating the foundational structures that allow the economy to thrive for generations.
As the Liberal Party of Canada prepares to choose its next leader, the race between Mark Carney, Chrystia Freeland, Karina Gould and three other candidates is shaping the party’s vision for the next federal election. While each candidate has put forward their own platform, the key to electoral success lies in synthesizing their strongest ideas into a compelling, broadly appealing agenda. A winning platform must balance economic growth, social progress, and national security while addressing the affordability crisis, and the looming challenges of global instability.
On the economic front, affordability remains the defining issue for Canadians. To address this, the Liberals should commit to a one-year reduction in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from 5% to 4%, an idea championed by Gould, to stimulate consumer spending in a period of high living costs. At the same time, Freeland’s proposal to eliminate GST on new homes valued up to $1.5 million for first-time buyers would provide tangible relief in the housing market. Additionally, a corporate tax increase from 15% to 17% on profits exceeding $500 million, as suggested by Gould, would ensure large corporations contribute fairly to public finances. This combination of targeted tax relief for individuals and increased corporate contributions would position the Liberals as champions of middle-class economic stability.
On climate policy, the party must address growing frustration with the carbon tax. Rather than scrapping it entirely, Carney’s proposal to replace the consumer carbon tax with a system of incentives that reward environmentally responsible behavior—while maintaining a tax on large industrial emitters—offers a pragmatic way forward. This would ease financial pressure on households while keeping industry accountable. At the same time, Freeland’s plan to expand tax incentives for workers in the critical minerals sector would ensure Canada remains a leader in the transition to a green economy. Together, these policies would balance economic growth with meaningful environmental action.
In matters of national security and foreign policy, Canada must be prepared for an increasingly volatile world. Both Carney and Freeland have called for raising defense spending to NATO’s 2% GDP target by 2027. This commitment would not only modernize the military, but also improve troop retention through better wages and resources. Meanwhile, Freeland has put forward the most aggressive response to potential U.S. trade barriers under a second Trump presidency. Her strategy—imposing retaliatory tariffs on key U.S. exports, blocking American companies from Canadian federal contracts, and leading international coalitions against protectionism—signals a tough, pragmatic approach to safeguarding Canada’s economic interests.
Domestically, the Liberals must continue to build on their social policy successes. Freeland’s plan to create 100,000 additional $10-a-day childcare spots by mandating daycare facilities in new or renovated federal buildings is a smart, low-cost way to expand access to affordable childcare. Additionally, Gould’s push for employment insurance (EI) reform—expanding eligibility and modernizing the system—would provide crucial support to workers navigating an unpredictable job market. And while universal basic income (UBI) remains a politically ambitious goal, Gould’s advocacy for it signals a progressive vision that could shape the party’s long-term agenda.
Finally, government reform should not be overlooked. Freeland’s call to cap the federal Cabinet at 20 ministers would be a symbolic yet impactful step toward a leaner, more efficient government, countering criticisms of bloated bureaucracy. Coupled with her experience in crisis management and economic stewardship, this signals a commitment to governing with discipline and focus.
By integrating these proposals into a single, unified platform, the Liberals can present themselves as the party of pragmatic leadership in uncertain times. With economic relief for middle-class Canadians, a recalibrated climate strategy, a strong stance on national security, and forward-thinking social policies, they would be well-positioned to win the next general election. The challenge now is for the eventual leader to stitch these ideas into a coherent narrative—one that reassures anxious voters while offering a vision for Canada’s future that is both ambitious and attainable.
The Rowanwood Chronicles 