PMJT: The First 100 Days
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Status
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,872
- Points
- 1,260
recceguy said:
Why not? Gordon Campbell was appointed as High Commissioner by PM Harper after he was gently force out of office in a cloud of suspicion and unpopularity. And he's a convicted drunk driver to boot!
Thanks to him, BC is now stuck with Premier Sarah Pailin...I mean, Christie Clark.
- Reaction score
- 4,254
- Points
- 1,260
"Diplomatic immunity" is such a harsh term >recceguy said:
- Reaction score
- 17,027
- Points
- 1,010
Diplomats don't get immunity from prosecution by their own country....
Just sayin....
Just sayin....
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
http://m.ottawasun.com/2016/01/31/krayden-trudeau-is-on-a-collision-course-with-defence-minister-sajjan
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,906
- Points
- 1,160
It’s to early in the day for Sajin to revolt. He will be a good soldier and try to maintain his vision and accommodate the others, but within a year I think his frustration level is going to skyrocket when he realizes that he is going to get little support for defense issues from his own caucus and then only in the guise of jobs in various ridings.
- Reaction score
- 4,700
- Points
- 1,160
Colin P said:
Its likely killing him to keep his mouth shut on the ISIL mission, especially WRT the fighters pulling out. A few of his soundbites seem like he's trying to distance himself from the decision, and throw Trudeau/Gerald Butts/Liberal Power Corp under the bus. If he's anywhere close to the leader he's been described as, he won't have a public fight. Whether he stays a Liberal candidate at the next election, however, would interesting if he keeps getting jerked around.
- Reaction score
- 4,254
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 27,466
- Points
- 1,090
Now, isn't a denial just further proof something? 
- Reaction score
- 3,106
- Points
- 1,160
That almost reads like the old "encouraged to seek success and fulfillment in another field of endeavour" line.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Just watched this video (a copy on YouTube with the CBC logo on it) and was absolutely revolted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE9yJ4rlQBI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE9yJ4rlQBI
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
I was impressed at the questions the young man put to JT, not so impressed with JT's answers. But then, I'm not surprised that JT underwhelms me time and time again. We're screwed.
- Reaction score
- 27,466
- Points
- 1,090
Kat Stevens said:
In the military, he'd be "promoted and posted".
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
We had plenty of warning. Andrew Lawton interviewed the Young Dauphin Jan 20, 2015 and everyone heard this:
https://soundcloud.com/am980/andrew-lawton-interviews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz9KHRNxtCo
So no one should be acting surprised now......
https://soundcloud.com/am980/andrew-lawton-interviews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz9KHRNxtCo
So no one should be acting surprised now......
- Reaction score
- 7,069
- Points
- 1,310
Thucydides said:
What I find hilarious about that interview is how he is asked the same question 3 times and gives nothing but anti-war rhetoric that is irrelavent to the conversation.
He's clearly pandering to a peace movement that is silent or damn near non-existent with regards to Daesh.
This assessment of the performance of the government by Andrew Coyne in the National Post is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. It is not very flattering and to those of us who remember the lack of fiscal discipline of the 70s, more than a little frightening.
Andrew Coyne: Trudeau’s first three months in power big on symbolism, short on substance
Andrew Coyne | February 5, 2016 3:50 PM ET
Three months in, the governing style of Justin Trudeau’s government is coming into focus. It is one part not being Stephen Harper, one part symbolic gesture, one part wriggling out of campaign promises, and one part saying yes to everybody. You thought the Harper government was all about the permanent campaign? Get used to it.
For a government that makes much of its progressive, forward-looking credentials, the Trudeau crew are unusually obsessed with digging up the recent past. The platform itself was filled with promises (my colleague, Bill Watson, puts the number at 50 ) to reverse this or that Conservative initiative. Some of these were well-considered — restoring the long-form census, forswearing the use of omnibus bills — others, such as abolishing income-splitting, less so. But what was common to all was their relentless symbolic focus, achieving maximum political mileage for least expense.
That trend has continued in office. From dropping highly charged legal appeals — the niqab case being the most famous example — to repealing laws that had become lightning rods for favoured client groups (e.g. bills requiring greater transparency in the affairs of unions and native bands) to such relatively minor irritants as the monument to the victims of Communism in Ottawa or the “Mother Canada” statue in Cape Breton, the Trudeau government has at all times been at pains to remind voters of the differences between itself and the government that preceded it, at least so long as this does not require much actual change in direction.
The lengths to which it is prepared to go in this regard are best illustrated in the continuing silliness over the mission against ISIL. The platform was unequivocal on this point: “We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq.” More specifically, the Liberals had promised to withdraw Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets from the mission, though from the time they made the promise they have yet to make any serious attempt to explain why: why others should fight in the region while we do not; why flying combat sorties is not where our “competitive advantage” lies, though our pilots are among the world’s most skilled and our allies have specifically requested they continue; nor any other of the host of questions it raised.
But of course they haven’t; of course they can’t. The truth is the policy was solely intended to distinguish them from the other parties, neither so gung ho as the Conservatives nor so cravenly pacifist as the NDP. Which is why when what the Liberals are pleased to call their new “policy” is announced next week, it will look like such ludicrous mush: withdrawing our own fighter jets (on precisely the schedule the mission was originally projected to end), but leaving in place the planes that refuel and guide those of other nations; doubling the number of “trainers,” whose actual work of painting targets for bombing runs looks a lot like combat; perhaps even sending an army battalion.
This tendency — to announce policy first, then figure out the consequences later; to prefer show to substance — is by now established as this government’s modus operandi. Is it to be supposed that the “evidence-based” party had any research to support its claim to be able to safely admit 25,000 Syrian refugees under government sponsorship by December? Was there any basis whatever to the party’s claim that raising the rate of tax on incomes above $200,000 by three percentage points would raise precisely the same sum ($3 billion) as cutting the middle tax bracket by a point and a half — and not, as is now admitted, at least $2 billion less?
Of course not: they gave each about the same amount of thought as Trudeau did in announcing, on the day the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was released, that he would implement all 94 of its recommendations. Which is about twice as much thought as he and his advisers gave to the implications of abolishing party caucuses in the Senate, resulting in its current state of more or less total confusion and paralysis. Or, for that matter, than they gave to their pipeline policy.
It was great fun being in opposition, when it was possible to favour building pipelines in general, save for any that happened to be proposed (the exception was Keystone, which had the great political virtue of being on foreign soil), supporting established regulatory processes while insisting on the need to obtain “social licence” and promising aboriginal groups a veto. But now the Liberals are in government, and the party’s position is murkier than ever, the prime minister reduced to pleading with warring provincial politicians to get along.
Ah well. Perhaps it can all be held together with promises of more cash to everyone: more for public-sector unions (the Tories’ attempt to dial back the banking of sick days is the latest reversal), more for cities (is there a transit plan so ill-advised this government will not underwrite it?), more for provinces, more for aboriginal groups. It’s a particularly appealing strategy when you have effectively abolished the budget constraint: after first freeing themselves, at some political risk, from the stricture against running deficits, the Liberals found it comparatively easy to sail past the platform’s commitment to deficits of no more than $10 billion a year.
We’re now led to believe the bottom line is a continually declining debt-to-GDP ratio, but there’s no particular reason to think the Liberals will be any more bound by this constraint than they were the others. I’m sure they’re not completely happy about it, but in the end the show must go on.
Andrew Coyne: Trudeau’s first three months in power big on symbolism, short on substance
Andrew Coyne | February 5, 2016 3:50 PM ET
Three months in, the governing style of Justin Trudeau’s government is coming into focus. It is one part not being Stephen Harper, one part symbolic gesture, one part wriggling out of campaign promises, and one part saying yes to everybody. You thought the Harper government was all about the permanent campaign? Get used to it.
For a government that makes much of its progressive, forward-looking credentials, the Trudeau crew are unusually obsessed with digging up the recent past. The platform itself was filled with promises (my colleague, Bill Watson, puts the number at 50 ) to reverse this or that Conservative initiative. Some of these were well-considered — restoring the long-form census, forswearing the use of omnibus bills — others, such as abolishing income-splitting, less so. But what was common to all was their relentless symbolic focus, achieving maximum political mileage for least expense.
That trend has continued in office. From dropping highly charged legal appeals — the niqab case being the most famous example — to repealing laws that had become lightning rods for favoured client groups (e.g. bills requiring greater transparency in the affairs of unions and native bands) to such relatively minor irritants as the monument to the victims of Communism in Ottawa or the “Mother Canada” statue in Cape Breton, the Trudeau government has at all times been at pains to remind voters of the differences between itself and the government that preceded it, at least so long as this does not require much actual change in direction.
The lengths to which it is prepared to go in this regard are best illustrated in the continuing silliness over the mission against ISIL. The platform was unequivocal on this point: “We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq.” More specifically, the Liberals had promised to withdraw Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets from the mission, though from the time they made the promise they have yet to make any serious attempt to explain why: why others should fight in the region while we do not; why flying combat sorties is not where our “competitive advantage” lies, though our pilots are among the world’s most skilled and our allies have specifically requested they continue; nor any other of the host of questions it raised.
But of course they haven’t; of course they can’t. The truth is the policy was solely intended to distinguish them from the other parties, neither so gung ho as the Conservatives nor so cravenly pacifist as the NDP. Which is why when what the Liberals are pleased to call their new “policy” is announced next week, it will look like such ludicrous mush: withdrawing our own fighter jets (on precisely the schedule the mission was originally projected to end), but leaving in place the planes that refuel and guide those of other nations; doubling the number of “trainers,” whose actual work of painting targets for bombing runs looks a lot like combat; perhaps even sending an army battalion.
This tendency — to announce policy first, then figure out the consequences later; to prefer show to substance — is by now established as this government’s modus operandi. Is it to be supposed that the “evidence-based” party had any research to support its claim to be able to safely admit 25,000 Syrian refugees under government sponsorship by December? Was there any basis whatever to the party’s claim that raising the rate of tax on incomes above $200,000 by three percentage points would raise precisely the same sum ($3 billion) as cutting the middle tax bracket by a point and a half — and not, as is now admitted, at least $2 billion less?
Of course not: they gave each about the same amount of thought as Trudeau did in announcing, on the day the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was released, that he would implement all 94 of its recommendations. Which is about twice as much thought as he and his advisers gave to the implications of abolishing party caucuses in the Senate, resulting in its current state of more or less total confusion and paralysis. Or, for that matter, than they gave to their pipeline policy.
It was great fun being in opposition, when it was possible to favour building pipelines in general, save for any that happened to be proposed (the exception was Keystone, which had the great political virtue of being on foreign soil), supporting established regulatory processes while insisting on the need to obtain “social licence” and promising aboriginal groups a veto. But now the Liberals are in government, and the party’s position is murkier than ever, the prime minister reduced to pleading with warring provincial politicians to get along.
Ah well. Perhaps it can all be held together with promises of more cash to everyone: more for public-sector unions (the Tories’ attempt to dial back the banking of sick days is the latest reversal), more for cities (is there a transit plan so ill-advised this government will not underwrite it?), more for provinces, more for aboriginal groups. It’s a particularly appealing strategy when you have effectively abolished the budget constraint: after first freeing themselves, at some political risk, from the stricture against running deficits, the Liberals found it comparatively easy to sail past the platform’s commitment to deficits of no more than $10 billion a year.
We’re now led to believe the bottom line is a continually declining debt-to-GDP ratio, but there’s no particular reason to think the Liberals will be any more bound by this constraint than they were the others. I’m sure they’re not completely happy about it, but in the end the show must go on.
- Reaction score
- 5,972
- Points
- 1,260
In my opinion, just based on "gut feel," not any specific evidence, the Liberals are, still, and plan to remain for as long possible, in the campaign mode. They campaigned well in 2015 and they are campaigning, now, for the 2019 election ~ a lesson they (and the CPC) have learned from our American neighbours who have demonstrated that it is possible to not govern themselves at all. (I'm not sure who is more responsible for the decay, the rot in American politics, the clowns on the left of the Democratic Party or the morons on the right wing of the GOP, but, suffice to say, the USA is, really, not quite fit to be an independent country any more.)
But, when campaigning, all you need to really worry about are the polls and you "play to the polls," and propose polices that have no hope of being "good" or useful or even in the national interest, but you propose them just because they're likely to popular. That's what the LPC is doing now. The PMO, Betts, Telford, et al are the campaign team and they are not interested in governing, only in campaigning.
Can they keep that up for four years?
Well, no, I think ...
... will intrude at, normally, the most inconvenient possible moment. cf. Murphy's Law and all that.
Edit: typo
But, when campaigning, all you need to really worry about are the polls and you "play to the polls," and propose polices that have no hope of being "good" or useful or even in the national interest, but you propose them just because they're likely to popular. That's what the LPC is doing now. The PMO, Betts, Telford, et al are the campaign team and they are not interested in governing, only in campaigning.
Can they keep that up for four years?
Well, no, I think ...
... will intrude at, normally, the most inconvenient possible moment. cf. Murphy's Law and all that.
Edit: typo
- Reaction score
- 8,295
- Points
- 1,160
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/governing
In most cases, except the political apparently, to govern is synonymous with control. It is the back end of Boyd's OODA loop - the bit where Decision is required and Action occurs. But to decide is to make enemies.
How long does it take before the ungoverned becomes the ungovernable?
- Status
Similar threads
