This week saw the news that Rideau Cottage, “temporary” home of the prime minister, is “inadequate.” The house is small and insufficiently secure for a head of government.

While I’m not inclined to argue that politicians ought to be living large at taxpayer expense as a rule, I’m embarrassed that the country routinely wrings its hands over where the prime minister lives and how he travels. Politicians need certain tools to do the job of governing a contemporary mass state. Debates about housing or travel, such as they are, don’t reflect serious disagreements over public policy or even our shared or disputed values. Instead, they’re occasions for nitpicking, pettiness, and supreme displays of insecurity. They’re silly and bad for us.

Today, Prime Minister Mark Carney is living at Rideau Cottage, just as Justin Trudeau did before him. He’s there because the official residence of the prime minister, 24 Sussex Drive, is a mess. It’s literally uninhabitable. The good news is that, in February 2024, the home was declared rodent and asbestos free. The bad news is that’s a declaration one hopes a G7 country wouldn’t have to make. It’s the sort of thing that ought to be implicit. Does your head of government live in a house full of carcinogens and rat droppings? Of course not! Why would you even ask? For a long time, Canada did have to ask the question, and the answer speaks to a national smallness that ought to be understood as a big shame.

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

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'd like to see a little more scrutiny of the way the media reports on and frames these things, too.

There are far too many stories that basically start and end at "this government project will cost X millions/billions/whatever," without putting any effort into exploring whether that's a lot of money in context. It's always going to sound like a lot without proper analysis.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Or reporting x dead in a terrorist attack, but not how many died in car accidents the same day. Or, topically, "F-35 downed in Iran" without any discussion of how many have bombed Iran and returned safely.

If the proportional news existed, I'd watch it, and all the coverage about old people slipping in the shower.

[–] No_Maines_Land@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 hours ago

Also "this project is X millions/billions" without saying how many years the project is for.

I'm not a mathologist, but I figure there's a difference in a one time $5 infusion than $5/5 years.