Trudeau's First Moves

[poochy]

Right...and that fatigue didn't have anything to do with the years of lies that were told about how evil he was and all of the terrible things he was going to do, because that invented perception has no impact on people when he does something like make it harder to get EI when we know full well that defrauding the EI system is a way of life for many. How can you possibly ignore how this government was vilified from even before they were elected when you say something like that? We know for a fact that the previous liberal government did more damage to all aspects of the civil service than the last conservative government did, but yet when they get voted out that same civil service treats trudeau like a member of the Beatles.

I might have voted for the liberals were it not for the leader, and some of the more 'Gerald Butsist' marxism, but we still see the rhetoric here everyday about how evil the conservatives were and its utter nonsense, and considering that the country was doing just fine it's ludicrous to ignore the lies and gross exaggerations that were told about what they were doing. Just as it's ridiculous to applaud an entire region of the country voting for the party that they think will allow them to get away with working less, or by lying to an entire portion of our society about the need for an inquiry into things we already have the answers for, but again, we couldn't actually believe the RCMP or the Conservatives about that either, they just aren't nice enough. Suddenly all those people who want 'fact based' decision making don't care about the facts, because of the evilness etc, shocking.

[Smallc]

Perception is important. As much as I was okay with much of what he did (I'm far less about perception) many people weren't, full stop, ends of story.

[Argus]

I was commenting on the hypocrisy of Argus talking about how Trudeau "bribed" voters... Harper was no different in his promises.

He was different in that he wasn't going to borrow money to do it.

[cybercoma]

He was different in that he wasn't going to borrow money to do it.

He did borrow money to do it. What are you talking about?

[The_Squid]

He was different in that he wasn't going to borrow money to do it.

Where have you been the last decade???

He had the largest deficit in Canadian history. Most of his term as PM was in a deficit.

[SpankyMcFarland]

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/meet-your-new-government-1.3305229/donald-savoie-government-by-cabinet-will-be-a-major-challenge-1.3307747

It may be far harder now than it was in PT's time to allow Mnisters to plot their own course. Minor differences in policy are instantly detected and made into a major issue within minutes, rather than days to weeks, or never, in the good old days. That's where I want us to go but it is going to be a challenge.

Edited November 8, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[ToadBrother]

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/meet-your-new-government-1.3305229/donald-savoie-government-by-cabinet-will-be-a-major-challenge-1.3307747

It may be far harder now than it was in PT's time to allow Mnisters to plot their own course. Minor differences in policy are instantly detected and made into a major issue within minutes, rather than days to weeks, or never, in the good old days. That's where I want us to go but it is going to be a challenge.

All reform is a challenge, but for goodness sake, Great Britain reached its greatest territorial extent and military power under cabinet government; with the Prime Minister as first among equals, and explicitly NOT a presidential figure.

And really, what did we get for the extreme centralization in the Harper government? It certainly wasn't a better government, and I'd argue all Harper managed to do is replace inter-cabinet rivalries and machinations with a PMO that replicated them, with significantly less accountability.

We'll see how true Trudeau is to his word when his first cabinet minister mucks up a file, but I'll take him at his word until I see some reason to think otherwise. And really, I don't think anyone is saying "Cabinet ministers should do whatever they like." The opposite of "absolute message control and centralization" isn't "free for all". Canada survived the first century of its existence with Ministers screwing up the odd file, and some Ministers even being mavericks in their own way.

[SpankyMcFarland]

All reform is a challenge, but for goodness sake, Great Britain reached its greatest territorial extent and military power under cabinet government; with the Prime Minister as first among equals, and explicitly NOT a presidential figure.

We'll see how true Trudeau is to his word when his first cabinet minister mucks up a file, but I'll take him at his word until I see some reason to think otherwise. And really, I don't think anyone is saying "Cabinet ministers should do whatever they like." The opposite of "absolute message control and centralization" isn't "free for all". Canada survived the first century of its existence with Ministers screwing up the odd file, and some Ministers even being mavericks in their own way.

Ministers of the Empire did not have to respond in a 24/7 news cycle. They had a much easier time of it, really. These

days, every minor inconsistency is seized upon and magnified, even more so than it was in Chretien's time.

One sign of the challenge ahead - Bains discussing the census. He seemed to be still in campaign mode, unable to mention the penalties for not filing as the reporters barked the question at him again and again.

I will be looking for independence of ministers, committees and MPs. In Britain today, parliamentary committees are

still independent of government. I'd much rather see Trudeau try and fail than follow the Harper route. It will take a few years to see how he has done.

Edited November 9, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[Big Guy]

Well, that certainly did not take long. The Liberals get in, check the previous government books and find a few "errors":

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-government-facing-bigger-baseline-deficits-amid-weaker-economy-pbo-1.2651221

Trudeau government is facing bigger baseline deficits amid weaker economy according to the (politically neutral) PBO. Will this change the Trudeau projections and be the excuse to blame the Harper government for undermining subsequent governments?

"The lowered forecast suggests it will be tougher for the Liberals to fulfil their election promise to balance the books by 2019-20 after three years of predicted deficits. The parliamentary budget office said Tuesday it has downgraded its economic outlook for Canada as the country grapples with weaker growth and lower revenues."

[ToadBrother]

Ministers of the Empire did not have to respond in a 24/7 news cycle. They had a much easier time of it, really. These

days, every minor inconsistency is seized upon and magnified, even more so than it was in Chretien's time.

In Britain, some of the broadsheets came out twice a day. There was an enormous appetite for information in the Victorian era, and while it may not been as large as it is now, believe me, to justify the amount of column being written even 150 years ago, journalists picked up on every hint of a scandal. Ironically, I think the difference is simply that people were more tolerant of their politicians' indiscretions and ineptitude. In a strange sort of way, we're much more puritanical, at least when it comes to politicians, than our recent ancestors were.

[PIK]

His new enviro ministers 1st move is to allow Montreal to dump 8 billion litres into the st Lawrence river. something harper would not let them do.

[overthere]

His new enviro ministers 1st move is to allow Montreal to dump 8 billion litres into the st Lawrence river. something harper would not let them do.

It is astonishing to me that the hypocrisy of this is not trumpeted on CBC. Ok, I am not so surprised at that.

But 8 billion liters is a lot of shit on any scale.

Quebec was deeply concerned about the potential for harm to beluga whales with an oil pipeline/terminal.

But releasing a toxic load of turds on the poor critters is A-OK.............

[Big Guy]

His new enviro ministers 1st move is to allow Montreal to dump 8 billion litres into the st Lawrence river. something harper would not let them do.

My understanding is that there are only two choices; leave it alone and when it fails (engineers say soon) then there is an uncontrolled spill and system goes down for weeks or empty it now (dump waste into water) under controlled conditions, fix it and get it back on live in days.

If I am mistaken then please correct my perception.

Of those two choices there really is no alternative but to dump.

As to the previous Harper governments position, it appears environment Canada had already OK'd the dump.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-raw-sewage-dump-federal-response-1.3270128

Edited November 10, 2015 by Big Guy

[SpankyMcFarland]

His new enviro ministers 1st move is to allow Montreal to dump 8 billion litres into the st Lawrence river. something harper would not let them do.

Unless Harper had an alternative plan, he was only postponing the inevitable. He hardly deserves credit for dumping the

problem on somebody else's desk.

[SpankyMcFarland]

In Britain, some of the broadsheets came out twice a day. There was an enormous appetite for information in the Victorian era, and while it may not been as large as it is now, believe me, to justify the amount of column being written even 150 years ago, journalists picked up on every hint of a scandal. Ironically, I think the difference is simply that people were more tolerant of their politicians' indiscretions and ineptitude. In a strange sort of way, we're much more puritanical, at least when it comes to politicians, than our recent ancestors were.

More puritanical perhaps today, but less deferential, and the examination is different. You would have to

admit the media environment is very different now. Every inflection, every look is seized upon as signs of

dissent.

During WWII, Hitler and Stalin spontaneously adopted eeerily similar daily routines as the war ground

on. Circumstances impose themselves on leaders. Trudeau is in for the fight of his life to transform

governmental culture. I wish him all the best.

Edited November 10, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[eyeball]

My understanding is that there are only two choices; leave it alone and when it fails (engineers say soon) then there is an uncontrolled spill and system goes down for weeks or empty it now (dump waste into water) under controlled conditions, fix it and get it back on live in days.

If I am mistaken then please correct my perception.

Of those two choices there really is no alternative but to dump.

As to the previous Harper governments position, it appears environment Canada had already OK'd the dump.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I think it's the shock value to the media that's causing all the problems.

The more important story here is the crisis in infrastructure spending and lack thereof.

[ToadBrother]

More puritanical perhaps today, but less deferential, and the examination is different. You would have to

admit the media environment is very different now. Every inflection, every look is seized upon as signs of

dissent.

During WWII, Hitler and Stalin spontaneously adopted eeerily similar daily routines as the war ground

on. Circumstances impose themselves on leaders. Trudeau is in for the fight of his life to transform

governmental culture. I wish him all the best.

More deferential? Really? There's a famous political cartoon from the 18th century attack William Pitt the Younger by showing him with his posterior over the edge of a wall defecating on the people underneath.

There certainly were groups where deference counted; the Monarchy and the nobility in general, but even in the late 18th and early 19th century George IV (particularly when he was Prince Regent) and William IV were often objects of derision, and later during the Victorian era proper, while Edward VII was still Prince Albert, some of his exploits were fairly common knowledge, and was even forced to appear in court over an illegal gambling scandal.

Even closer to home, Sir John A MacDonald was busted taking a $50,000 bribe (the infamous Pacific Scandal), which, for those students of history, was the first of only two times that a Canadian government used prorogation to evade imminent defeat in the House of Commons. What was Sir John A MacDonald's reward for his corruption being publicly outed? Why, to be re-elected in 1878.

Honestly, I don't think deference had much to do with it. I think there were just lower expectations.

[SpankyMcFarland]

More deferential? Really? There's a famous political cartoon from the 18th century attack William Pitt the Younger by showing him with his posterior over the edge of a wall defecating on the people underneath.

There certainly were groups where deference counted; the Monarchy and the nobility in general, but even in the late 18th and early 19th century George IV (particularly when he was Prince Regent) and William IV were often objects of derision, and later during the Victorian era proper, while Edward VII was still Prince Albert, some of his exploits were fairly common knowledge, and was even forced to appear in court over an illegal gambling scandal.

Even closer to home, Sir John A MacDonald was busted taking a $50,000 bribe (the infamous Pacific Scandal), which, for those students of history, was the first of only two times that a Canadian government used prorogation to evade imminent defeat in the House of Commons. What was Sir John A MacDonald's reward for his corruption being publicly outed? Why, to be re-elected in 1878.

Honestly, I don't think deference had much to do with it. I think there were just lower expectations.

The medium changes the game regarding deference. We can hear and read decisions as they are being made, every casual

comment is reported, dissent is immediately picked up and magnified.How were politicians questioned about their decisions back then? They did not live under constant scrutiny as they do now. A drunken Prime Minister would not last long these days. There'd be a hundred stories in the media after a few days of that carry-on and an invitation to Jimmy Kimmel.

Many of us today regard the monarchy as a quaint anachronism, too much trouble to dump. THAT opinion was

not widely held in MacDonald's time.

Edited November 11, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[ToadBrother]

The medium changes the game regarding deference. We can hear and read decisions as they are being made, every casual

comment is reported, dissent is immediately picked up and magnified.How were politicians questioned about their decisions back then? They did not live under constant scrutiny as they do now. A drunken Prime Minister would not last long these days. There'd be a hundred stories in the media after a few days of that carry-on and an invitation to Jimmy Kimmel.

The thing is that everyone knew MacDonald was a drunk. It wasn't a secret. People simply didn't have the expectation that a PM was going to have a halo. In some ways I think we have ludicrously high expectations. Why, a political candidate cannot have ever have said anything intemperate, or he or she will soon find herself driven out of the race.

[SpankyMcFarland]

The thing is that everyone knew MacDonald was a drunk. It wasn't a secret. People simply didn't have the expectation that a PM was going to have a halo. In some ways I think we have ludicrously high expectations. Why, a political candidate cannot have ever have said anything intemperate, or he or she will soon find herself driven out of the race.

It's partly a question of quantity. What did 'the whole country' mean then? What did they know? Some rumours. They did notsee him staggering around, slurring his words, Lord knows what else and probably breaking somelaws in the bargain. The detail of what we have about everybody has massively increased, and our higher

expectations also come from the fact that we think we deserve more now from our 'betters' than we used to.

Edited November 11, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[SahadK]

Yes, it is true and I will agree that having a 50/50 cabinet is more of a statement than it is effective as it matters more on credentials than it does on sex. But then again, everyone I have seen come into cabinet does seem quite qualified.

[Smallc]

According to CBC, Canada will leave the ISR and refueling aircraft in Kuwait.

[eyeball]

So we're in...

Got it.