Politics in 2016

[OldSolduer]

That's my biggest issue with the RCMP involvement: it was all political.

There's no backbone left in the service, the first thing out of the OIC or Commissioner's mouth should have been "No."

The RCMP fell to media pressure for the sake of political correctness and, instead of enforcing the law - Maintiens le droit "maintain the right"/"defending the law".

Theu should have then arrested and charged Nigel Wright, and every other MP, Senator with questionable expense claims regardless of political affiliation, regardless of who gave the order.

The Mounties went political in the 90's (that's a guess) when a Commissioner - I can't recall his name - was blatantly obvious in his political leanings.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am not a fan of the Liberals in general and Justin Trudeau in particular.  Those that know me, or at least have seen some of my posts, will know that this is stating the obvious.  For the rest, that is just to set my credentials.

Margaret Wente prompted this submission with her article of April 15th "Reality Bites Trudeau".

I have been swivering over whether the Prime Minister is a dilletante or venial or naive or narcissistic because he has not demonstrated to my liking that he is competent or even grounded.

I am coming to the conclusion that, in the best possible light, he is naive.  He has led a sheltered life.  He has never had to worry about an income.  With that privileged upbringing he has had ample opportunity to absorb from his peers the prevailing orthodoxies of the day.  And he has never found a reason to question them.

One of the most pervasive dogmas of the day is the dogma of consensus.  It is particularly prevalent within the school system.  Consensus is the notion that with enough time and enough words then every one will come to a common understanding of The Truth.

Once The Truth has been discerned and accepted then decisions will make themselves, strife will fall away and the lion will lie down with the lamb.  There will be no need for adjudication.  There will be no people unhappy with the outcome.  There will be no bad guy.

Our Prime Minister fears being the bad guy.  He detests those that are accepting of the need for making decisions against the wishes of others.  He knows in his heart of hearts that there isn't a problem he can't talk his way out of.

And so he tells everybody exactly what they want to hear as he waits for them to solve his problems for him.  Consensus rules the day.

But government by consensus has been tried in the past.  The most notorious example was of the Polish-Lithuanian Sejm.  Between the years of 1573 and 1763 the governing principle of the parliament was consensus.  Effectively it handed every member of the parliament a veto.  As a result, during this period, according to Wiki

about 150 sejms were held, out of which about a third failed to pass any legislation

.

Poland disappeared and Lithuania was subsumed.  And nobody was happy - except their neighbours the Germans and the Russians.

 

[Altair]

Let's just wait and see what approach works better.

Being a leader doesn't always mean squashing dissent and ramming your agenda through. That just leads to push back, resentment and anger.

If all sides can get together and leave equally unhappy or equally happy with the prime minister acting as a mediator, that is a approach that is not to be discounted.

In terms of pipelines for example, I feel a lot more can be achieved if every province is on board as opposed to telling quebec to stick it. Especially when quebec is looking for a federal partner for Bombardier.

Besides, let's face it. He has a majority, it's not like he can't pass legislation if certain forces don't want to negotiate or find common ground.

Also, he's been on the job a since November, what problem exactly has he not delivered to your satisfaction?

 

[PuckChaser]

Besides, let's face it. He has a majority, it's not like he can't pass legislation if certain forces don't want to negotiate or find common ground.

Which is exactly what Harper was demonized for, but its a viable tactic for Trudeau to use?

 

[Altair]

Which is exactly what Harper was demonized for, but its a viable tactic for Trudeau to use?

If that's your go to, first step of getting something done,ya, he'll ya, it should be demonized.

If former PM Harper sat down with the premiers and tried to find common ground but was being stonewalled then that's different,  but how many time can you honestly remember that happening?

If PM Trudeau sits down with the premiers or premier or mayor ( all things he's done recently ) and there is no concensus to be had, then no, I won't demonize him for using his majority to make things happen.

Sometimes middle ground cannot be found, but to not even try to look for it is where I personally draw the line.

 

[ModlrMike]

Leadership by consensus is called... following.

 

[Altair]

Leadership by consensus is called... following.

I don't see getting everyone on the same page working together as following but to each their own.

 

[Kirkhill]

With respect Altair,  and peculiarly enough I do actually respect your submissions even as we disagree, with respect I must point out that in practice consensus means the following:

Getting the leaders of the opposition and the Prime Minister to agree on a course of action
Getting 13 Premiers to agree with them
Getting 308 Members of parliament to agree with them
Getting an unknown number of MLAs to agree with them

And when the social licence concept of consensus is incorporated then you incorporate a large and indeterminate number of NGOs, 600 Aboriginal communities, similar order of magnitude of settler communities, thirty-five million Canadians, and if the past is any indicator, three hundred million Americans, a billion or so Chinese and virtually everybody else that wants to put an oar in.

Sooner or later somebody is going to be upset - either by the decision or by the decision not to decide.  It is inevitable.

In addition, meetings, while useful, are too often in the political world, mere opportunities for theater.

 

[PuckChaser]

Sometimes middle ground cannot be found, but to not even try to look for it is where I personally draw the line.

Trudeau hasn't sought consensus or middle ground on some huge issues. He's already stated he wants to legalize pot, jumping over decriminalization without speaking to any mayors (some of whom have large inner city drug problems already). He's going to try to push electoral reform without referendum. He's set the fighter program back to square one without consulting the Canadian aviation industry that has a billion dollars in contracts thus far. He pulled CF-18s from the fight against ISIL despite 60% polling numbers indicating Canadians supported that mission.

Seems like a lot of stuff that didn't need a middle ground to get rammed through. He's formed the government, he has the right to push the legislation he wants. But to somehow try to spin his method of getting what he wants done as "fair", when the endstate is the same smacks of naivety. At the end of the day Trudeau and Harper both got/are going to get what they think is right, regardless of paying lip service to "public consultations".

 

[Altair]

Trudeau hasn't sought consensus or middle ground on some huge issues. He's already stated he wants to legalize pot, jumping over decriminalization without speaking to any mayors (some of whom have large inner city drug problems already). He's going to try to push electoral reform without referendum. He's set the fighter program back to square one without consulting the Canadian aviation industry that has a billion dollars in contracts thus far. He pulled CF-18s from the fight against ISIL despite 60% polling numbers indicating Canadians supported that mission.

Seems like a lot of stuff that didn't need a middle ground to get rammed through. He's formed the government, he has the right to push the legislation he wants. But to somehow try to spin his method of getting what he wants done as "fair", when the endstate is the same smacks of naivety. At the end of the day Trudeau and Harper both got/are going to get what they think is right, regardless of paying lip service to "public consultations".

There is only so much flexibility one can have on election promises. He campaigned on the issues you mentioned,  hard to then open them up to consultation. But when you have premiers and mayors publicly feuding about a pipeline for example,then getting people on the same page is the best approach.

Also, what other issues are there that Trudeau is afraid to make people angry or is being a follower in some people's opinion?

With respect Altair,  and peculiarly enough I do actually respect your submissions even as we disagree, with respect I must point out that in practice consensus means the following:

Getting the leaders of the opposition and the Prime Minister to agree on a course of action
Getting 13 Premiers to agree with them
Getting 308 Members of parliament to agree with them
Getting an unknown number of MLAs to agree with them

And when the social licence concept of consensus is incorporated then you incorporate a large and indeterminate number of NGOs, 600 Aboriginal communities, similar order of magnitude of settler communities, thirty-five million Canadians, and if the past is any indicator, three hundred million Americans, a billion or so Chinese and virtually everybody else that wants to put an oar in.

Sooner or later somebody is going to be upset - either by the decision or by the decision not to decide.  It is inevitable.

In addition, meetings, while useful, are too often in the political world, mere opportunities for theater.

It would help if I knew what specific issues we were discussing.

Again, in terms of pipelines, why do the Americans factor into transmountain or energy east? Or the Chinese?

13 Premiers are not needed, alberta would support any pipeline, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are on board, ontario and especially quebec are iffy, new Brunswick is on board. Two provinces to get on board total of 6 for energy east. Toss in native groups  and that's about it.

Transmountain alberta and BC. Toss in native groups.Easy.

I don't see the massive issue with getting these groups to the table to find a deal that works for all of them

 

[Kirkhill]

Americans wish to stop the pipelines. (Tides Foundation et al)
Chinese wish to buy the gas, oil and coal.

With respect to the consensus - Yes, some of the 13 premiers are on board.  The rest have to be brought on board.

I find that I cannot share your optimism when you suggest that it will be easy to resolve the Transmountain issue with the natives at the table as well.  In fact I find it hard to believe that you will find consensus in the lower mainland for any pipelines.

With respect to the issue - that is largely immaterial - as if consensus is the governing principle then all issues are subject to resolution by consensus. 

I guess that would mean selecting the Prime Minister by consensus as well, wouldn't it?

Or perhaps some opinions are more worthy than others.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Getting provinces onboard is easy.  Whichever direction a pipeline takes, there are only a few.  (And note that none of the territories are involved in either eastern, western, or southern routes.)  So the list of demands isn't difficult to enumerate.  Getting aboriginals on board is the hard part, because there are many more and there is a lot of nation-to-nation dick-waving involved.

>Being a leader doesn't always mean squashing dissent and ramming your agenda through.

It pretty much does, though.  If agreement already exists among the followers, no real leadership is needed - a child could lead the way.  If not, then some of the followers will have to be told to STFU and get in line or get out.  Why do you think the military (and some companies, and some other organizations) place so much stress on the importance of "once the decision is made, get behind it"?  It's to mitigate the need for overt dissent-squashing and agenda-ramming - if everyone pretends to be unswervingly loyal, everyone can pretend the leader isn't being a hard-ass.

 

[Altair]

Americans wish to stop the pipelines. (Tides Foundation et al)
Chinese wish to buy the gas, oil and coal.

With respect to the consensus - Yes, some of the 13 premiers are on board.  The rest have to be brought on board.

I find that I cannot share your optimism when you suggest that it will be easy to resolve the Transmountain issue with the natives at the table as well.  In fact I find it hard to believe that you will find consensus in the lower mainland for any pipelines.

With respect to the issue - that is largely immaterial - as if consensus is the governing principle then all issues are subject to resolution by consensus. 

I guess that would mean selecting the Prime Minister by consensus as well, wouldn't it?

Or perhaps some opinions are more worthy than others.

Americans,  sure. Can't do anything about Canadian pipelines though. Don't need a seat at the table.

Chinese buy stuff. Cool. Don't need to be at the table.

Again max of 6 premiers for one pipeline, 2 for the other. Which is really just pm trudeau being nice because pipelines are a federal jurisdiction.

BC and alberta already have mutual interests, BC needs to sell its surplus electricity and alberta is phasing out coal power plants. Alberta needs a pipeline through BC to western ports. I trust grown adults can figure out a way that everyone is happy.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree the Prime Minister has the authority to act in the absence of consensus.

I don't think the current Prime Minister is as prepared to be reviled as the previous Prime Minister was as a result of making decisions.

It happens to everybody.

 

[Altair]

I agree the Prime Minister has the authority to act in the absence of consensus.

I don't think the current Prime Minister is as prepared to be reviled as the previous Prime Minister was as a result of making decisions.

It happens to everybody.

I simply don't think he's going to be reviled.

Every province has a price. Quebec is the biggest holdup in this whole process. Quebec need money for a bombardier bail out. If quebec doesn't play ball I see energy east passing with pm trudeau saying he tried his best to get everyone on board but some parties were being unreasonable.

Again, this is a single issue. As puckchaser was so kind to point out, trudeau hasn't been ruling by concensus by in large.

Quote from puckchaser

Trudeau hasn't sought consensus or middle ground on some huge issues. He's already stated he wants to legalize pot, jumping over decriminalization without speaking to any mayors (some of whom have large inner city drug problems already). He's going to try to push electoral reform without referendum. He's set the fighter program back to square one without consulting the Canadian aviation industry that has a billion dollars in contracts thus far. He pulled CF-18s from the fight against ISIL despite 60% polling numbers indicating Canadians supported that mission.

 

[George Wallace]

I simply don't think he's going to be reviled.

You should broaden the circles in which you circulate.  [

 

[George Wallace]

From The Sun chain of newspapers:



NEWS CANADA:
New book on Trudeau's immigration policies

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

New book on Trudeau's immigration policies
A look at Candice Malcolm's Losing True North
POSTMEDIA NETWORK
FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, APRIL 30, 2016 06:03 PM EDT | UPDATED: SUNDAY, MAY 01, 2016 09:06 AM EDT

When Justin Trudeau became Canada’s 23rd Prime Minister, he promised to govern differently – in an optimistic and transparent way.

Instead, as author and Sun columnist Candice Malcolm reports in her new book Losing True North, Trudeau has chosen to pursue a cynical political agenda to manipulate Canada’s immigration system.

As authorities in Europe struggle to respond to terror attacks and waves of migration from conflict zones, Trudeau is haphazardly throwing Canada’s doors open to the world.

Why is Trudeau granting Canadian citizenship to a convicted terrorist? Why is he scrapping the language test for many citizenship applicants?

Malcolm puts forward compelling evidence that the Prime Minister is undermining Canadian values — and doing it for one simple reason: so his Liberal Party can win favour with special interest groups and add to its voting coalition in time for the next election.

With his radical changes to our immigration system, Trudeau is sacrificing Canada’s traditions and advantages. He is putting our economy, our national security and our very way of life at risk.

Trudeau is changing our country – and changing what it means to be Canadian.

Losing True North is a wake-up call to all Canadians.

Malcolm's book is available at Amazon.ca

Q&A with Losing True North author Candice Malcolm:

Why write this book now?

Justin Trudeau has wasted no time in implementing his radical, partisan immigration agenda. His policies are already hurting Canadians and putting our national security at risk. We shouldn’t let him get away with it.

What’s your biggest concern with this issue?

That Trudeau’s policies will put Canadians’ lives at risk. A secondary concern is that his schemes will drive public skepticism towards immigration. Trudeau may wake up in 4 years to a country that no longer welcomes newcomers with open arms.

What do you hope readers take away from the book?

These are dangerous times. I hope Canadians remember that it’s each of our responsibility to remain vigilant against threats to our freedom. Canadians should pay attention – these are issues that will change our country.

Are you optimistic about the future?

Yes. I may not have confidence in our prime minister, but I do have faith in the Canadian public. Canadians instinctively understand the important balance of freedom and security, and have a tremendous sense of justice and fairness. We will get through these challenging times, regardless of Trudeau’s disastrous agenda.

More on LINK.

 

[Altair]

You should broaden the circles in which you circulate.  [

I don't think he's going to be reviled by people who don't already revile him for having good looks, his selfies,  having a wealthy father, and winning the election.

Some environmentalists sure, but they might already go NDP with their leap nonsense.

 

[George Wallace]

I don't think he's going to be reviled by people who don't already revile him for having good looks, his selfies,  having a wealthy father, and winning the election.

I think that there are a large number of people who revile him for more concrete reasons than what you just imagined.

 

[jollyjacktar]

From The Sun chain of newspapers:



NEWS CANADA:
New book on Trudeau's immigration policies

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

More on LINK.

It's the same thing Blair and Brown did in the UK when they were PM, letting all and sundry into the country with freebies galore with the hopes and expectations of the thank you votes to follow.  All on the backs of the taxpayers.  No wonder the UK is the mess it is today.  We'll follow suit if we're not careful.