PMJT: The First 100 Days

[ModlrMike]

To be fair, everyone blames the last guy. That being said, there comes a time where you have to accept responsibility for your own actions. Pfffft... this is politics, that will never happen.

 

[Kirkhill]

Those who voted for "change" and trusted Justin Trudeau to bering "change" away from the tight, central control of the Stephen Harper years are going to get some "change" ...

... back to a system, peioneered by Pierre Trudeau and used by Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne, of even tighter control from the centre.

The Ottawa Citizen reports that Matthew Mendelsohn, formerly an Ontario deputy minister (several different provincial portfolios) who worked with Queen’s Park veterans Katie Telford, now Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff, and Gerald Butts, his principal secretary, has joined the Privy Council Office as the first deputy secretary responsible for “results and delivery.”

His job, the Citizen reports, is to "ensure the Liberals’ priorities are watched, tracked and delivered by the next election in 2019."

This is a return to, even beyond, the state of affairs when Pierre Trudeau's friend, Michael Pitfield, was parachuted into the PCO with the express mission of making the public service dance, wholly, to the government's tune. Public servants and scholars resisted on the grounds that PCO is responsible for the "machinery of government," for making the whole of government work, all the time, respecting all the laws, not just the ones favoured by the government of the day. The idea of an "independent" and apolitical public service is a complex and difficult thing, especially if (when) we accept that the public service is the in the service of the public, not of the government of the day.

So, boys and girls, we're getting "change," but, in my view, it is dangerous change that benefits them ...

                                                                                   

                                                                                                                        ... but not Canada.

But this is of a piece with the appointment of US and UN ambassadors who are "Establishment" supporters personally connected to Himself.  And you praised that move.  Consultants and Lawyers with feet in both the Liberal and the Progressive Conservative parties and Knowlton Hill.

Toronto and Montreal are rallying again.  Manning and Harper have received exactly the same treatment as Diefenbaker.  For exactly the same reasons.

 

[cavalryman]

Whats frustrating is that everything that's going wrong with the economy or anything else now is still being blamed on Harper. Its almost like a personality cult around Trudeau like he's the second coming.

It worked for Obama.  Abysmally incompetent and yet he got re-elected for a second term.

 

[dapaterson]

It worked for Obama.  Abysmally incompetent and yet he got re-elected for a second term.

If by "incompetent" you mean "drew down forces in hopeless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and killed Osama Bin Laden", you're right on the money.

 

[PuckChaser]

If by "incompetent" you mean "drew down forces in hopeless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and killed Osama Bin Laden", you're right on the money.

I had no idea Obama was a SEAL, and took part in the raid.

Look where the draw down has gotten us in Afghanistan and Iraq now. Purely political to pop smoke and leave those countries. We broke it, we needed to buy it, but Obama needed political points, so the mission was never properly transitioned.

 

[Jed]

If by "incompetent" you mean "drew down forces in hopeless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and killed Osama Bin Laden", you're right on the money.

Wow, I previously thought you had a grip on the situation dapaterson. I am dissappointed.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Whats frustrating is that everything that's going wrong with the economy or anything else now is still being blamed on Harper.

Blame away.  The NDP and LPC demanded a huge spending package for 2009 and got what they wanted.  The NDP and LPC, the provincial governments, and most of the left and centre-left in Canada demanded the federal government not balance its budget "on the backs of" people and provinces (ie. not cut transfers) and got what they wanted.

This is exactly the economy they demanded.

 

[Edward Campbell]

But this is of a piece with the appointment of US and UN ambassadors who are "Establishment" supporters personally connected to Himself.  And you praised that move.  Consultants and Lawyers with feet in both the Liberal and the Progressive Conservative parties and Knowlton Hill.

Toronto and Montreal are rallying again.  Manning and Harper have received exactly the same treatment as Diefenbaker.  For exactly the same reasons.

No, it isn't, not at all ... appointing friends as ambassadors is a well established custom and, in my opinion, and in the case of our relationship with the USA, a smart one, too. It's also a move the Americans understand and it has the advantage of keeping the Global Affairs bureaucrats away from the really important business ... let them dither on about UNSC seats and such.

The PCO appointment is a horse of anoter colour ... in fact it's a beast of another species, entirely. It puts a partisan political "manager" inside what is meant to be the very centre of an apolitical civil service. I think it's dangerous and a very bad move.

 

[daftandbarmy]

To be fair, everyone blames the last guy. That being said, there comes a time where you have to accept responsibility for your own actions. Pfffft... this is politics, that will never happen.

'You will find three envelopes in the drawer....'

 

[Altair]

>Whats frustrating is that everything that's going wrong with the economy or anything else now is still being blamed on Harper.

Blame away.  The NDP and LPC demanded a huge spending package for 2009 and got what they wanted.  The NDP and LPC, the provincial governments, and most of the left and centre-left in Canada demanded the federal government not balance its budget "on the backs of" people and provinces (ie. not cut transfers) and got what they wanted.

This is exactly the economy they demanded.

If you believe that to be the case, the conservatives should have stuck to the principles instead of sacrificing them to stay in power.

That said, I don't believe the federal stimulus of the latest 2000s to have caused a complete collapse in commodity prices we are seeing now.

I did find it hypocritical for the CPC to attack the ndp and LPC over deficits when they were running  them themselves.

I also found it it hypocritical for the ndp and LPC to attack the CPC on the deficits they ran because in doubt they would have done any different.

Hypocrisy all around.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I did find it hypocritical for the CPC to attack the ndp and LPC over deficits when they were running  them themselves.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?  The CPC did not want to run deficits, and set and achieved a target date for re-balancing the budget.  The federal budget was in surplus prior to the 2008 recession, and the deficit was caused by the recession: fall in revenues, increase in social expenditures, and one-time spending program (the EAP).  The recession was an external event, and the EAP was forced by the demands of the LPC and NDP on the then-minority CPC government.

The NDP campaigned on a reputation [for] balanced budgets, although that seems to have been a lie - it is reasonable to assume the federal party knew about Notley's plans to blow a hole in the AB budget after the federal election.

The LPC made a choice to campaign on deficits - it was not forced on them by events (eg. a recession) or by the other parties.

If the CPC were still the government, it is reasonable to assume they would still be exerting strong efforts to balance the budget.  Contrarily, we know - we need not assume - the LPC has no particular interest in balancing the budget, but is intent on deficit spending and is willing to see the first few deficits rise to at least double the values they cited during the campaign.  The past government is not in a position to execute on its choice; the new government is.  The new government owns the current fiscal situation with respect to deficit or surplus.

It is entirely reasonable for the CPC to criticize the new government for its choices and actions, which were not forced on the new government by circumstances or other parties.

 

[Altair]

>I did find it hypocritical for the CPC to attack the ndp and LPC over deficits when they were running  them themselves.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?  The CPC did not want to run deficits, and set and achieved a target date for re-balancing the budget.  The federal budget was in surplus prior to the 2008 recession, and the deficit was caused by the recession: fall in revenues, increase in social expenditures, and one-time spending program (the EAP).  The recession was an external event, and the EAP was forced by the demands of the LPC and NDP on the then-minority CPC government.

The NDP campaigned on a reputation [for] balanced budgets, although that seems to have been a lie - it is reasonable to assume the federal party knew about Notley's plans to blow a hole in the AB budget after the federal election.

The LPC made a choice to campaign on deficits - it was not forced on them by events (eg. a recession) or by the other parties.

If the CPC were still the government, it is reasonable to assume they would still be exerting strong efforts to balance the budget.  Contrarily, we know - we need not assume - the LPC has no particular interest in balancing the budget, but is intent on deficit spending and is willing to see the first few deficits rise to at least double the values they cited during the campaign.  The past government is not in a position to execute on its choice; the new government is.  The new government owns the current fiscal situation with respect to deficit or surplus.

It is entirely reasonable for the CPC to criticize the new government for its choices and actions, which were not forced on the new government by circumstances or other parties.

Thats where you and I disagree.

The CPC could have tried to convince the GG to call another election, could have let the coalition take over and run their stimulas, they did not need to cave on the issue. If they felt it was so bad a idea, they could have let the LPC NDP and BQ own it.

Instead, they prorogued parliament and then set off on running deficits so in my view they need to own them. Not to mention, the CPC had a majority government from 2011 onward and they still ran deficits. So yes, I did find it hypocritical to be going around saying

"CPC deficits good, but beware, NDP, LPC deficits bad".

Kind of like how I find it hypocritical for the LPC and NDP to say CPC deficits bad knowing full well they would have run large deficits themselves if they were in power.

 

[CombatMacguyver]

Thats where you and I disagree.

The CPC could have tried to convince the GG to call another election, could have let the coalition take over and run their stimulas, they did not need to cave on the issue. If they felt it was so bad a idea, they could have let the LPC NDP and BQ own it.

Exactly.  The options were try to make something of the bulls**t the other parties were forcing upon them or allow the separatists and communists to become the defacto governing powers.

You're saying you would've chosen the latter option?!  Yikes.

 

[Altair]

Exactly.  The options were try to make something of the bulls**t the other parties were forcing upon them or allow the separatists and communists to become the defacto governing powers.

You're saying you would've chosen the latter option?!  Yikes.

The communist party of Canada didn't have any seats and as far as I know was not involved in the coalition.

I'm saying two things.

One. They did not HAVE to cave. They could of stuck to their principles. They chose to stick to power, which is fine, but they need to own the decisions they made to stay in power.

Two. They had a majority goverment from 2011 onwards. No more NDP and LPC pressure.They continued to run deficits. That's solely on them.

So yes, pure hypocrisy to say that their deficits were good and the other parties deficits are bad.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The CPC could have...

We'd have had the EAP spending either way.  Might as well stay in power, ne?

>Not to mention, the CPC had a majority government from 2011 onward and they still ran deficits

You keep ignoring the "why", which renders your conclusions vacuous.  It's not as if the Conservatives had a multi-year attack of March Madness and ran out spending money willy-nilly.

Paul Martin balanced the budget in part by cutting transfers to provinces, and upset a lot of people - mostly the political left and centre-left - who thought it was a bad idea.  Stephen Harper balanced the budget without cutting transfers to provinces.  By the left's measure and the concensus of most of the talking heads bleating today, Harper's kung-fu is better.

"CPC deficits good, but beware, NDP, LPC deficits bad".

But that simpleton's rendering is not the distinction.  The distinction is that the CPC deficits were "good" because of necessity and the purpose served.  The conventional wisdom is, "deficits during recession and to promote recovery good; deficits to expand program spending or without the excuse of a recession bad."  The new government's enthusiasm for deficit spending is "bad" because much of the new spending will have nothing to do with one-time "stimulus" or "investment" purpose and will establish (or re-establish) programs which contribute to a structural deficit.  It is also "bad" because the Canadian economy is not structured in a way that allows conventional Keynesian austerity/stimulus to have much effect, and because a commodities price slump is not the demand shock to which Keynesian stimulus is applicable.

 

[PuckChaser]

I think we gained a lot more from belt tightening in the public service and budgets than we did on the "stimulus" package. The CPC also didn't put nearly as much money into it as the NDP (lesser so the LPC) wanted. We'd be significantly screwed had Harper turned the reigns over.

No deficits are good, regardless of who runs them.

 

[CombatMacguyver]

The communist party of Canada didn't have any seats and as far as I know was not involved in the coalition.

I'm saying two things.

One. They did not HAVE to cave. They could of stuck to their principles. They chose to stick to power, which is fine, but they need to own the decisions they made to stay in power.

Two. They had a majority goverment from 2011 onwards. No more NDP and LPC pressure.They continued to run deficits. That's solely on them.

So yes, pure hypocrisy to say that their deficits were good and the other parties deficits are bad.

I was insinuating that the Liberals and NDP are the hyperbolic Communists but whatever.  The CPC ran those deficits because of the EAP, not in spite of it.  Sudden cancelling of the EAP upon gaining a majority wasn't realistic as it would've likely resulted in costs incurred anyways (see cancelled helicopters, gas plants, et cetera ad nauseum absurdum)

So I still vehemently disagree with you.

 

[Altair]

I was insinuating that the Liberals and NDP are the hyperbolic Communists but whatever.  The CPC ran those deficits because of the EAP, not in spite of it.  Sudden cancelling of the EAP upon gaining a majority wasn't realistic as it would've likely resulted in costs incurred anyways (see cancelled helicopters, gas plants, et cetera ad nauseum absurdum)

So I still vehemently disagree with you.

Ya, wasn't going to engage in your hyperbole. Same way you wouldn't engage in mine if I called the CPC fascists.

Disagree all you want, but if they felt eap was a bad idea, something they shouldn't do, then they should have stuck to their principles and not done it. If that meant the other guys doing it, so be it. If the deal they made with the opposition was to run eap in order to stay on power, then own it. Those are CPC deficits. To then turn around and say the others would run deficits and that's a bad thing after doing so since 2008 is hypocrisy. Plain and simple. It would have been better if they never brought up the issue.

>The CPC could have...

We'd have had the EAP spending either way.  Might as well stay in power, ne?

>Not to mention, the CPC had a majority government from 2011 onward and they still ran deficits

You keep ignoring the "why", which renders your conclusions vacuous.  It's not as if the Conservatives had a multi-year attack of March Madness and ran out spending money willy-nilly.

Paul Martin balanced the budget in part by cutting transfers to provinces, and upset a lot of people - mostly the political left and centre-left - who thought it was a bad idea.  Stephen Harper balanced the budget without cutting transfers to provinces.  By the left's measure and the concensus of most of the talking heads bleating today, Harper's kung-fu is better.

"CPC deficits good, but beware, NDP, LPC deficits bad".

But that simpleton's rendering is not the distinction.  The distinction is that the CPC deficits were "good" because of necessity and the purpose served.  The conventional wisdom is, "deficits during recession and to promote recovery good; deficits to expand program spending or without the excuse of a recession bad."  The new government's enthusiasm for deficit spending is "bad" because much of the new spending will have nothing to do with one-time "stimulus" or "investment" purpose and will establish (or re-establish) programs which contribute to a structural deficit.  It is also "bad" because the Canadian economy is not structured in a way that allows conventional Keynesian austerity/stimulus to have much effect, and because a commodities price slump is not the demand shock to which Keynesian stimulus is applicable.

Like I said, it was fine that they ran eap themselves to stay in power. I'm just calling on them to own up to that decision.

That may all be true, jury is still out on it, I'll wait till the budget and see how the economy responds before passing judgement,  but at the end of the day I was addressing how the CPC chose to frame this. They chose to frame this as the other guys will run deficits while not talking about how their goverment ran deficits. While I know you can only fit in so much content in a attack ad, especially when you need to make a snide remark on someone's hair or how ready they are, they chose to frame this in a simplistic form and it was downright hypocritical.

 

[ballz]

I have to say I agree with Altair and support his POV on this. If a string of deficits was inevitable due to a minority government, I would have preferred to see the CPC say "if that's what Canadians want, no problem, someone else can run them, because we won't."

Canadians would have come crawling back to the CPC shortly after letting the LPC, NDP, and BQ govern as a coalition, crawling back with a majority mandate and a "just fix this mess for God's sake" attitude. If the CPC is going to run deficits anyway why do I care if the LPC or the CPC is in power. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but we've got to swallow it. Instead, we treat our heroin (stimulus) withdrawal symptoms by taking a little more heroin (stimulus spending). Eventually we'll have to own our withdrawals or be that addict that's found dead in a ditch.

 

[PuckChaser]

They were able to frame that argument because they were able to bring us back to within ~$1B CAD of being in the black, with the Liberals willing to ramp spending up near 2009 stimulus levels. They never said it was wrong to run deficits, but wrong to run them right now and used that to contrast policies. Opposition parties also hammered the CPC on everything from not enough, too much, when are you returning to balance, almost immediately after EAP was announced.