The performative government and Bill Morneau

[I am Groot]

We all know this is a government of style over substance. We've seen Trudeau's narcissism and desperate need to be liked all the way from when he was in college and doing stupid things to get people to look at him, including his wild array of costumes he never grew out of. We can see his policies designed for visual appeal rather than substance. 

Bill Morneau, however, gives us a glimpse of life on the inside. And how dismayed he found to discover that even as Finance Minister, he just wasn't important enough for Trudeau to pay any attention to. Morneau rarely got to speak to Trudeau except when the latter was surrounded by advisors. And Trudeau just wasn't interested in policy. A few descriptions from his book say as much. The PMO cared about the news cycle and politics, not about actual governing.

By his own telling, his personal interaction with Mr. Trudeau was virtually non-existent. The two men rarely met. When they did, the PM was usually surrounded by advisers, precluding the opportunity for frank, one-on-one exchanges.

The portrait of his time in government that Mr. Morneau paints in his new book, Where To From Here, serves as a cautionary tale for future leaders on how not to alienate the best members of their teams and a disillusioning insider account about how the Trudeau government works. A Bay Street veteran with solid business credentials, Mr. Morneau’s talents were largely wasted in a government that obsesses about winning the news cycle and cares little about fiscal matters.

“My job providing counsel and direction where fiscal matters were concerned had deteriorated into serving as something between a figurehead and a rubber stamp,” he writes. “There was only revision of my recommendations, ever upward, toward funding levels the PMO believed would play well the next time Canada went to the polls.”

When it comes to the massive splurge of spending around the pandemic, Morneau is clear that it wasn't what he had wanted. 

"We lost the agenda. During the period when the largest government expenditures as a portion of GDP were made in the shortest time since the advent of World War II, calculations and recommendations from the Ministry of Finance were basically disregarded in favour of winning a popularity contest," he writes. "In a moment where I saw us taking decisions that were more significant than I thought we needed, it was frankly, extremely frustrating," Morneau said in the interview. "I think in that moment, you know, it started to sow the seeds of a challenge. That we just weren't going to be able to recover."

So the next time Liberals try to tell you all that spending was necessary, remember what they mean is 'necessary to help our election chances'. 

Further on his inability to discuss things with Trudeau one on one he says that isn't just about him. Trudeau never discussed anything with his cabinet one on one. Morneau mentions this when he talks of his resignation.

He writes it was one of the "very few" times the two had discussed something in private without any other advisers or sources of counsel in the room which "simply didn't happen" in Trudeau's world.

"Virtually any topic you wanted to discuss with the prime minister—official or informal, strategy or gossip—had to be shared in the presence of members of his staff," he writes.

That says to me Trudeau doesn't believe he has the capability to deal with issues on his own, that he needs staff around him to provide the council on all the subjects he lacks knowledge of and to reign in his impulse to respond through is own judgement. This says nothing good about Trudeau as a leader. And that is one of the other things Morneau mentions, Trudeau's inability to develop interpersonal relationships with his cabinet ministers. He might be the smiley, charming guy for the press but in government he apparently keeps his distance. Which is odd. Harper was famously an introvert but he did establish a number of close relationships with cabinet ministers. Maybe Harper didn't have to fear every conversation would be in waters over his head the way Trudeau does.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-bill-morneaus-talents-were-wasted-in-justin-trudeaus-ottawa/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/morneau-says-pm-favoured-political-points-over-policy-felt-like-rubber-stamp-ahead-of-inevitable-resignation-1.6221671

[Queenmandy85]

17 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

So the next time Liberals try to tell you all that spending was necessary, remember what they mean is 'necessary to help our election chances'. 

What is the purpose of a political party?

A political party has one sole purpose. It is to win elections. Period. Full stop. This is a rule that the PPC and the NDP fail to grasp and the CPC's actions for the last few years indicates we have a fragile grasp on it as well. Mr. Morneau is no doubt, a crackerjack book keeper, but he was a poor fit for politics. They don't call the Liberals the NGP, or Natural Governing Party for nothing.

23 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

That says to me Trudeau doesn't believe he has the capability to deal with issues on his own, that he needs staff around him to provide the council on all the subjects he lacks knowledge of and to reign in his impulse to respond through is own judgement. This says nothing good about Trudeau as a leader.

Any leader who feels he knows everything about everything likely is not as smart as he thinks he is. President Reagan's greatest strenght was his ability to recognize his own limitations and to surround himself with people who knew a lot more than he did and most of all, to listen to their advice. If the Prime Minister surrounds himself with knowledgeable people when dealing with issues where he is not an expert, then good for him. 

[eyeball]

45 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

"Virtually any topic you wanted to discuss with the prime minister—official or informal, strategy or gossip—had to be shared in the presence of members of his staff," he writes.

That says to me Trudeau doesn't believe he has the capability to deal with issues on his own, that he needs staff around him to provide the council on all the subjects he lacks knowledge of and to reign in his impulse to respond through is own judgement. This says nothing good about Trudeau as a leader. 

I've never voted for him but this tells me I was correct in my observation that he knew full well, like many other politicians, that he as in over his head on COVID and as such deferred to experts who knew better.

I still won't vote for him though.

[Queenmandy85]

It is interesting that Minister Morneau did not resign over his disagreements with the Prime Minister, but rather he waited until he was forced to resign over the WE scandal. Normally, when a Minister is in disagreement with cabinet policy, they do the honourable thing and resign as a matter of principal. (principle? I can never get that straight)

[Army Guy]

26 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It is interesting that Minister Morneau did not resign over his disagreements with the Prime Minister, but rather he waited until he was forced to resign over the WE scandal. Normally, when a Minister is in disagreement with cabinet policy, they do the honourable thing and resign as a matter of principal. (principle? I can never get that straight)

Are you suggesting that Morneau was the master mind behind the WE scandal, or was he the fall guy that Justin had chosen... I mean Justin has a history of doing just that, picking fall guys when it benefits him, SNC scandal ring a bell.  

And like you said the primary rule is to get reelected, there is no honor in resigning it goes against the prime objective to get reelected until pension is obtained. Getting along with the boss is not a guarantee in any profession.

[Moonbox]

I think both lines of thinking are valid.  It's hard to seriously argue that Trudeau's policymaking is principled, soberly considered or even particularly pragmatic.  That being said, Morneau's credibility is certainly worth questioning.  That doesn't mean he's wrong, just that he's not an unbiased critic.    

[Queenmandy85]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

Are you suggesting that Morneau was the master mind behind the WE scandal, or was he the fall guy that Justin had chosen... I mean Justin has a history of doing just that, picking fall guys when it benefits him, SNC scandal ring a bell.  

And like you said the primary rule is to get reelected, there is no honor in resigning it goes against the prime objective to get reelected until pension is obtained. Getting along with the boss is not a guarantee in any profession.

Minister Morneau was in the WE scandal up to his neck. There were other questions of ethics as well. 

I said the primary rule about winning elections applies to political parties, not politicians. The party is the vehicle for winning, but the candidate must hold to a higher standard. Parties and politicians must also adhere to the rules of sportsmanship. How you play the game is most important.  Ministerial responsibility is vital in a parliamentary system. Pleasing voters with goodies, or promises of goodies  is what a party does because pleasing voters is what democracy is for. However, if any politician has a choice between re-election and following her conscience, then honour and tradition demand they choose conscience. So far, that is not a decision Prime Minister Trudeau has exercised well. Disclaimer: If I were Prime Minister after having struggled to get there over decades, I am pretty certain which way I would choose. When I think back to all those years when my destiny was certain to be Prime Minister of Canada and how I would have governed...I looked a lot like President Trump, only with a different hairstyle. 

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Minister Morneau was in the WE scandal up to his neck. There were other questions of ethics as well. 

I said the primary rule about winning elections applies to political parties, not politicians. The party is the vehicle for winning, but the candidate must hold to a higher standard. Parties and politicians must also adhere to the rules of sportsmanship. How you play the game is most important.  Ministerial responsibility is vital in a parliamentary system. Pleasing voters with goodies, or promises of goodies  is what a party does because pleasing voters is what democracy is for. However, if any politician has a choice between re-election and following her conscience, then honour and tradition demand they choose conscience. So far, that is not a decision Prime Minister Trudeau has exercised well. Disclaimer: If I were Prime Minister after having struggled to get there over decades, I am pretty certain which way I would choose. When I think back to all those years when my destiny was certain to be Prime Minister of Canada and how I would have governed...I looked a lot like President Trump, only with a different hairstyle. 

All the liberals were in it up to their necks, but the ring leader has been Justin just so we are clear....and Justin can not talk to anyone about ethics including the devil himself.

The party might be the end goal, but getting elected is the primary goal, and while serving as the PM might be winning the LOTO getting that fat government pension is the constellation prize.

there has not been a PM for a long time that has followed his conscience and do what is right for the country, or we would not be in the state we are in right now with almost every department have been run to the ground, over worked and under manned and under funded...Justin is in this for him and his family, it has nothing to do with Canada, he has proved that time after time, and Canadians have grown tired of all this politics and now don't really care... take a look at a few days ago, Freeland asked for 2 bil dollars to fund a company that has not even been established yet....it was covered in the media, but it barely got a response ....Kennedy once said ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you could do for your country... today it is the other way around, people demanding the government look after them becasue they pay a little tax, they don't care if our entire security apparatus is broken, including immigration, justice, finances, the list is to long to mention what matters today is LGBTQ2, racism, cancel culture, climate change and if your a feminist...and where is my damn check... 

Edited January 16, 2023 by Army Guy

[myata]

13 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A political party has one sole purpose. It is to win elections. Period. Full stop.

In a democracy, it was about understanding, expressing and implementing key needs, priorities and interests of the citizens. Solving problems. Finding and implementing working solutions. But that was long ago and maybe not here.

The system here was designed, from day one, to rule safely and without any unnecessary troubles. For those (only) having access to the trough. You nailed it right on the spot, yet again. "And nothing else matters".

[myata]

14 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

A political party has one sole purpose. It is to win elections. Period.

And another illustration of the point: first past the post is a danger to democracy! No: it does not work. There are exactly two known exceptions, one has an extensive system of check and balances, and the other, simply unique in the history.

That's how it works on them and what they will predictably and inevitably come to: just get to the trough, and stay there as long as possible. And nothing else matters (thanks again).

[Nationalist]

19 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What is the purpose of a political party?A political party has one sole purpose. It is to win elections. Period. Full stop. This is a rule that the PPC and the NDP fail to grasp and the CPC's actions for the last few years indicates we have a fragile grasp on it as well.

This is what politics has been corrupted to. And too many accept this as normal and support this warped version of the purpose of leadership.

Very sad.

[Queenmandy85]

5 hours ago, myata said:

And another illustration of the point: first past the post is a danger to democracy! No: it does not work. There are exactly two known exceptions, one has an extensive system of check and balances, and the other, simply unique in the history.

That's how it works on them and what they will predictably and inevitably come to: just get to the trough, and stay there as long as possible. And nothing else matters (thanks again).

I didn't quite understand that except you seem to think money is the incentive to go into politics. If that is what you are saying, you are incorrect. MP's generally run for office to make things better. The incentive for the top jobs, especially Prime Minister is the same, but also power. No amount of money can match power. Henry Kissenger said "Power is the greatest aphrodisiac of all.

As for first past the post, the only real alternative is run off elections. If none of the candidates in a riding receive a majority of the votes, a run off election between the top two candidates is held a few weeks later. This would mean having possibly 300 additional elections. Elections are expensive as it is. It is an important investment but a run off would add another ...70%?

19 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

This is what politics has been corrupted to. And too many accept this as normal and support this warped version of the purpose of leadership.

Very sad.

It is not corruption. It is organization. It is something like the concept of a union or a marketing department in a business. It pools resourses and organizes messaging. It is not a new idea. We've had political parties since the Restoration. It is normal. We need to prevent parties from having power over MP's, rather than the MP's controlling the parties. In Canada, that is the problem, but it is up to the back benches to correct that. They do have the power. They just have to use it.

[Nationalist]

29 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I didn't quite understand that except you seem to think money is the incentive to go into politics. If that is what you are saying, you are incorrect. MP's generally run for office to make things better. The incentive for the top jobs, especially Prime Minister is the same, but also power. No amount of money can match power. Henry Kissenger said "Power is the greatest aphrodisiac of all.

As for first past the post, the only real alternative is run off elections. If none of the candidates in a riding receive a majority of the votes, a run off election between the top two candidates is held a few weeks later. This would mean having possibly 300 additional elections. Elections are expensive as it is. It is an important investment but a run off would add another ...70%?

It is not corruption. It is organization. It is something like the concept of a union or a marketing department in a business. It pools resourses and organizes messaging. It is not a new idea. We've had political parties since the Restoration. It is normal. We need to prevent parties from having power over MP's, rather than the MP's controlling the parties. In Canada, that is the problem, but it is up to the back benches to correct that. They do have the power. They just have to use it.

Politics is supposed to be the representation of the electorate. It is not. Hence...its warped.

[Queenmandy85]

17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Politics is supposed to be the representation of the electorate. It is not. Hence...its warped.

How do you come to that conclusion? Parliament seems to be a pretty accurate reflection of the electorate. 

Roughly 60% of the electorate is on the centre / centre-left and 40% is centre / centre -right. 

63% of MP's are centre/centre-left, and 35% of MP's are centre / centre right. That is as close to a reflection of the electorate as you are going to get in any system.

[I am Groot]

21 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What is the purpose of a political party?

A political party has one sole purpose. It is to win elections. Period. Full stop. This is a rule that the PPC and the NDP fail to grasp

You have a singularly shallow grasp on things. The purpose of a political party is for people who share an ideology and vision to combine in order to govern and pass legislation to further their vision of a nation or people. You should actually want to accomplish things, in other words, as opposed to being elected to be elected.

In your view above the actual purpose is merely to put on a play, a performance for the cameras to convince people to elect you. And afterward your responsibilities end. That certainly melds with this 'style over substance' government and it's drama teacher leader. Unlike you, however, I don't believe this is something to be applauded.

 

21 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Any leader who feels he knows everything about everything likely is not as smart as he thinks he is. President Reagan's greatest strenght was his ability to recognize his own limitations and to surround himself with people who knew a lot more than he did and most of all, to listen to their advice.

Well, to begin with Harper had advisors but didn't seem to need his hand held during every conversation. He had competent ministers who were capable of zipping up their trousers without supervision from the PMO.

That suggests his limitations were rather less limited than the current PM, and he understood how delegation works.

In addition, Morneau was one of those much more capable people and by his own testimony he was given precious little attention from Trudeau or the short pants crowd at the PMO. Or do you think Gerald Butts was more capable than Morneau of running the financial affairs of the country?

Oh wait,  actually running the financial affairs properly for the benefit of the country isn't what you believe a political party should be doing, correct? Using the money and finances of the country to further your own political interests is the real job.

This is such a bald confession of what you believe the Liberal party stands for and how it functions it's a wonder you're not embarrassed to write it and proclaim yourself a supporter.

 

[I am Groot]

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

I've never voted for him but this tells me I was correct in my observation that he knew full well, like many other politicians, that he as in over his head on COVID and as such deferred to experts who knew better.

I still won't vote for him though.

Except the expert who knew better was Morneau and it doesn't sound like Trudeau ever paid much attention to him.

[I am Groot]

20 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Minister Morneau was in the WE scandal up to his neck. There were other questions of ethics as well. 

I've always believed he was just the fall guy and that the direction came from Trudeau and the PMO

20 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I said the primary rule about winning elections applies to political parties, not politicians. The party is the vehicle for winning, but the candidate must hold to a higher standard. Parties and politicians must also adhere to the rules of sportsmanship. How you play the game is most important.  Ministerial responsibility is vital in a parliamentary system.

We've seen none of that from this government. But then again, why should a minister be held responsible for decisions the minister has little say in? Morneau is not the first to say that all decisions in this government come from the PMO and that ministers are simply given their talking points. And therein lies the problem with this performative government. Ministers are chosen for their visual appeal to certain communities. They're chosen as window dressing, not for their abilities. Every previous government had powerful, stand-out ministers everyone knew and who were respected for their abilities, as well as political savvy. Not this one. 

 

20 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

However, if any politician has a choice between re-election and following her conscience, then honour and tradition demand they choose conscience. So far, that is not a decision Prime Minister Trudeau has exercised well.

Or at all. As an example, Harper made the difficult decision in support of economics advise to push back the retirement age by two years because this was what would deal best with an aging population. There were no votes to be had in this decision. Rather the contrary. Trudeau campaigned on repealing it, and did. Harper put in place legislation to require native bands to make their spending public. Trudeau repealed that too. Harper capped the import of elderly immigrants because they were costing a fortune in health care resources and a quarter were winding up on welfare. Trudeau has increased that number by 600%,  offering further increases in every election he's run in - always in immigrant/ethnic heavy ridings.

The decisions Trudeau has made which were for the benefit of the party as opposed to the country are innumerable. I cannot think of any done which were for the good of the country but detrimental to the party's electoral hopes.

 

[myata]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I didn't quite understand that except you seem to think money is the incentive to go into politics.

No you don't seem to. It's not just the money, any smart kid in a free country could make millions just from being that, smart. It's the power, exclusivity, elitism, being better and above those little folk (far) below. And you're right again, eventually comes down to the dough and trough how else. Look smart kid made millions, and hockey players too (seriously) and why couldn't we with all our hard work and sacrifice? Is there anything we cannot do (here)? And sure will come to that, not a hypothesis but an assurance, guarantee. There were experiments to that point done, proven and sealed. Rats with the sugar syrop valve. Pigs controlling their trough.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Except the expert who knew better was Morneau and it doesn't sound like Trudeau ever paid much attention to him.

Morneau isn't a medical expert, but point taken. Trudeau needs a financial expert amongst his cadre of advisers.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Morneau is not the first to say that all decisions in this government come from the PMO

It was the same in Prime Minister Harper's government. He ruled his caucus with and iron hand. If a member of caucus spoke their mind, they were punished.

 

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Ministers are chosen for their visual appeal to certain communities. They're chosen as window dressing, not for their abilities.

It has been that way since confederation. That is why you want to be a government MP from PEI. You have a 1 in 4 chance of being in cabinet.

 

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Trudeau has increased that number by 600%

I really dislike Prime Minister Trudeau's immigration policy. Canada has too many people.

 

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

The decisions Trudeau has made which were for the benefit of the party as opposed to the country are innumerable.

Decisions made that benifit the governing party are decisions that are popular with voters. We want governments to do what voters want. That is democracy.

Sometimes, governments need to make unpoppular decisions such as lockdowns in a medical pandemic emergency. The government had to urgently convince people to stay in their homes in order to slow the spread of Covid. To do that, they had to get compensation money to as many people as possible as quickly as possible, and worry about the possibility that some would get money they were not entitled to later. It was a question of saving lives.

Soon, governments will have to make seriously unpopular decisions to mitigate climate change, again, to try and save lives. 

What decisions have the government made that did not benifit the country, but benefitted the grits?

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How do you come to that conclusion? Parliament seems to be a pretty accurate reflection of the electorate. 

Roughly 60% of the electorate is on the centre / centre-left and 40% is centre / centre -right. 

63% of MP's are centre/centre-left, and 35% of MP's are centre / centre right. That is as close to a reflection of the electorate as you are going to get in any system.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/a-short-history-of-justin-trudeaus-scandal-plagued-liberal-government

And that's old. The leaders of our government are...tainted. This has gone on long enough.

You wonder why there is so much angst and passion in politics today. This is why.

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/a-short-history-of-justin-trudeaus-scandal-plagued-liberal-government

And that's old. The leaders of our government are...tainted. This has gone on long enough.

You wonder why there is so much angst and passion in politics today. This is why.

Again, government is a reflection of the population.

20% of people will steal regardless of the consequences. 60% of people will steal if they think they can get away with it and the consequences won't affect them. 20% of people will never steal. If anything, MP's are more honest than the voters. Having been involved in politics for so long, I've come to believe voters are the least honest, and greediest group in the country.  When I was seeking the Progressive Conservative nomination, the question I was asked repeatedly was what (money / goodies) are you going to give us?  First they said they were opposed to capital punishment but then they nominated and elected a guy who would have brought back hanging. They want better healthcare but want taxes cut.

[SpankyMcFarland]

A PM surrounded by advisers and deaf to Cabinet colleagues is a system problem in the British model. It long predates the current Trudeau and can be seen in the UK and Ireland as well. 

[I am Groot]

48 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

A PM surrounded by advisers and deaf to Cabinet colleagues is a system problem in the British model. It long predates the current Trudeau and can be seen in the UK and Ireland as well. 

The problem is a PM who becomes too deaf to his cabinet and caucus loses votes and then gets overthrown in the UK. In Canada caucus is composed of obedient sheep who will follow a disastrous leader over a cliff.

[SpankyMcFarland]

6 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The problem is a PM who becomes too deaf to his cabinet and caucus loses votes and then gets overthrown in the UK. In Canada caucus is composed of obedient sheep who will follow a disastrous leader over a cliff.

In the UK that happened with the chaos produced by Brexit. Trudeau has been successful in three elections. MPs punish failure.