• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loachman said:
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-for-trudeau-governing-is-entirely-about-sweet-words-not-action

Rex Murphy: For Trudeau, governing is entirely about sweet words, not action

If sweet declarations were not so tied up with the need to act on them, this government would be perfect

Rex Murphy
September 15, 2017
2:52 PM EDT

Within the literati there’s a quite famous exchange between two of the last century’s prominent American novelists. Scott Fitzgerald is reported as offering Ernest Hemingway the following proposition: “Ernest, the rich are very different from you and me.” To which Hemingway retorted: “Yes, Scott, they deviously take advantage of various tax loopholes, and thereby increase the burdens on middle class Canadians. Tax ‘em more, I say.”

And there, almost to the comma, in Hemingway’s prescient comment you have a nearly exact premonition of the position Justin Trudeau is taking at this very time. “Amazing,” you might think, but it’s just one of the many illustrations of how the study of literature and politics converge. (Just as an aside, the works of P.G. Wodehouse will offer the studious inquirer a nearly perfect overlay to the politics of Newfoundland and Labrador, right up to the present day. Wodehouse’s masterpiece is impressively revelatory on federal-provincial relations during the turbulent administration of Premier Brian Peckford. Somewhere in the compendious and collected works of our own great critical sage, Northrop Frye, you will find reflections that bear on this very subject — literature as political prophecy. Literature has many faces. But perhaps I digress.)

We see from the above that Mr. Trudeau takes a very dim view of the rich, notwithstanding his own enrolment in that shifty cohort. He sees the need to take them down a tax peg or two.   

Except, of course, for the rare occasions when he chooses to dine with Eastern billionaires and solicit their support for the good of his party. Or when he deems it therapeutic to vacation on a private Caribbean island owned by the illustrious Aga Khan. Or summits with rock stars and Hollywood royalty. Who’s to say but that he undertakes such distasteful (to him) connections under the prudential axiom of “Know your enemy.”

Nor should we account this an hypocrisy. For it is becoming more and more clear that there is no discrepancy between what Mr. Trudeau says on any given topic, and what he actually chooses to do - or not do, as the case may be. This is because with Mr. Trudeau the intention, and the intention alone, is the term that counts.

There is no one more gifted in modern Canadian politics in the art of saying the right thing, of finding the most accommodating and winsome language on almost any topic, than our prime minister.  He declares very well. And when he declares himself on any issue, that’s frequently the end of it. The doing, which we normally expect to occur after the declaring, the act which normally flows from a statement of intention, these are yokes for other people.

His is a government built on the statement of good intentions. Canadians have become very familiar with some of his most famous and fulsome predications:

“Diversity is our strength,” tops the list. It’s almost a personal incantation.

But there are others, almost equally embraced:

“No relationship is more important to our government and to Canada than the one with Indigenous peoples.”

“This election will be the last under first-past-the-post.”

“The world needs more Canada.”

“The rich must pay their fair share.”

Call these the Trudeau Five. Each houses a worthy sentiment, in simple language, conveying a sense of urgent, moral commitment. In lesser politicians, these plain, declarative statements would almost certainly imply a determination to link them to policies, to actions, to give flesh to their sentiments. But in a government of good intentions, this is not necessarily the case.

Take, “This election will be the last under first-past-the-post.” Where is that now? Why, in the crowded scrapyard of brilliant rhetorical flashes; statements of intention that gave warmth to a campaign, but which chilled in government.

Who was more declarative on the need for an inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women than Mr. Trudeau in opposition? And where is that sensitive, heart-aching matter now? In a great slough of imperfect administration, distrusted by those it sought to heal, and mired in red tape and grievous disappointment over its proceedings. Nonetheless, it would be unkind to say that the inquiry’s early failure should throw a shadow on the declaration of intention that begat it.

Internationally, Mr. Trudeau early and often declared that Canada could and should act as an example to the world, especially in its famous peacekeeping missions. That too stalled, and nearly two years in, remains an empty, open file. If - as another of his patented formulations has it - the world needs more Canada, well, the world is just going to have to wait for it.

As I say, there is no modern prime minister who has a more ready basket of soft thoughts and sweet words on almost any progressive concern, or who so impressively marshals the tone of sympathetic sincerity when declaring himself on the topics of the day, than Mr. Trudeau. If government were the business of declaring good intentions, and if declaring good intentions were not so damnably tied up with the need to act on them, this government would be perfect.

The same goes for his thoughts on the rich. We know from what he says what Mr. Trudeau thinks of them: they are a dark and devious bunch of free-riders. But tax policy or no tax policy, hard words or no hard words, he will stay friends with them when it is needful. When there are funds to raise, and a party to support, the calumnies heaped on them will evaporate, the dinners will recur, and their company will be sought as eagerly as before.

But no mind, whatever the subject, the prime minister’s heart is in the right place. He has many bright phrases and the Air Miles to prove it.

The "World needs more Canada" quote cannot be originally attributed to PM Trudeau- it was first stated by Bono and then by Obama as "NATO needs more Canada". These then spun off into the commercials and other tripe that followed.

While the LPC has failed/delayed initiatives as Old man Murphy correctly asserts, so did the CPC, the Liberals before him, the PC's before them, etc etc etc. Trying to say that talking big and not delivering is a Trudeau only failing is ignoring such goodies as the CPC's providing the CAF with F35s, the Liberals before them creating the NVC to help vets, and the PCs before them stating that they would purchase nuclear subs. While there are a thousand "but" arguments I'm sure, I firmly believe that Trudeau/the LPC of 2017 isn't guilty of anything that every other party isn't
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
While there are a thousand "but" arguments I'm sure, I firmly believe that Trudeau/the LPC of 2017 isn't guilty of anything that every other party isn't

Do you have any more of the rose-coloured glasses for sale?

You're not seeing the problem. The problem is the Liberals campaigned on being "different" and "not Harper". However, we're seeing similar tactics that took Harper years to start using. Let's see the latest "Do as I say, not as I do" campaign promise break from the Trudeau Liberals:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-set-to-limit-debate-on-big-priorities-as-mps-return-to-ottawa-1.3593308

"We're looking forward to debating everybody, but if it comes to a point where we're seeing obstructionism as we saw on certain occasions in the last session, time allocation is a tool that could be used," said Ahmad, who stressed they have not made up their minds to use it.

"It's a case-by-case analysis."

NDP House Leader Murray Rankin said he was disappointed with the approach, especially since the Liberals had joined the NDP in criticizing the previous Conservative government of prime minister Stephen Harper for imposing time allocation so often.

"Obstructionism" is the democratic right of the Opposition parties using the rules of the Commons to oppose legislation. I mean, the basic dictatorship of China like PM Trudeau admires has no "obstructionism" or opposition of any kind allowed by law, so perhaps that's what they're going to try for.

You'll also note that almost 2 years into a 4 year governing period of a large majority in the House, the Liberals have been unable to accomplish more than 25% of their campaign promises, with a stunning 15% already broken. (https://trudeaumetre.polimeter.org/)
 
PuckChaser said:
Do you have any more of the rose-coloured glasses for sale?

You're not seeing the problem. The problem is the Liberals campaigned on being "different" and "not Harper". However, we're seeing similar tactics that took Harper years to start using. Let's see the latest "Do as I say, not as I do" campaign promise break from the Trudeau Liberals:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-set-to-limit-debate-on-big-priorities-as-mps-return-to-ottawa-1.3593308

"Obstructionism" is the democratic right of the Opposition parties using the rules of the Commons to oppose legislation. I mean, the basic dictatorship of China like PM Trudeau admires has no "obstructionism" or opposition of any kind allowed by law, so perhaps that's what they're going to try for.

You'll also note that almost 2 years into a 4 year governing period of a large majority in the House, the Liberals have been unable to accomplish more than 25% of their campaign promises, with a stunning 15% already broken. (https://trudeaumetre.polimeter.org/)

No need for rose coloured glasses as I specifically stated that the Liberals had failed/delayed initiatives. For the article commented on, one can rebuttle with the Conservatives Bill C-51 which over 100 law professors called "dangerous". Trudeau has changed the tone in Ottawa, which is a nice change of pace from the constant negativity prior. Is it show over substance? absolutely.

At any rate, the point in the original text was not to say Trudeau is doing something great or something terrible. It's to say that Old Man Rex's (I dont have much time for him- he's an out of touch Ottawa denizen in the make of Mr. duffy) assertion that this government is somehow different than previous ones is incorrect. I have seen SSE money coming in this year from the new defence plan, which is more than I can say for Conservative F35s, so there's that.

 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
I have seen SSE money coming in this year from the new defence plan, which is more than I can say for Conservative F35s, so there's that.

You were all about colouring every government the same but ou must have completely missed the part about how the Chretien Liberals got us into the F-35 (Then JSF) program, and it was Liberals drumming up opposition with fake costs that prevented the Tories on the edge of a major election from pulling the trigger. But now the current Liberal government is our saviour in defense spending? In what way? Invented capability gaps to sole source aircraft to politically delay competition on a real new fighter that they know the F-35 will win, but they can't sole source without a competition now that Lockheed has provided a costed proposal for 18x F-35As to cover the interim fighter "gap"? Or are you impressed by increased defense spending that won't kick in until years down the road or was basically re-released previous spending (CSC but with increases to cover more ships, Army Logistic vehicles) to bump up the total "increase"? Maybe you were impressed by the Defense Policy document that promised a wide-ranging review that basically turned into a CFDS over many more years with marginal increases to capability while massive issues were left on the table like recruiting timelines, undermanning, retention, etc?
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
No need for rose coloured glasses as I specifically stated that the Liberals had failed/delayed initiatives. For the article commented on, one can rebuttle with the Conservatives Bill C-51 which over 100 law professors called "dangerous". Trudeau has changed the tone in Ottawa, which is a nice change of pace from the constant negativity prior. Is it show over substance? absolutely.

At any rate, the point in the original text was not to say Trudeau is doing something great or something terrible. It's to say that Old Man Rex's (I dont have much time for him- he's an out of touch Ottawa denizen in the make of Mr. duffy) assertion that this government is somehow different than previous ones is incorrect. I have seen SSE money coming in this year from the new defence plan, which is more than I can say for Conservative F35s, so there's that.
t
So what is your opinion of the interim fighter buy and the refusal to conduct a competition for a fighter replacement until after the next election?
 
PuckChaser said:
You were all about colouring every government the same but ou must have completely missed the part about how the Chretien Liberals got us into the F-35 (Then JSF) program, and it was Liberals drumming up opposition with fake costs that prevented the Tories on the edge of a major election from pulling the trigger. But now the current Liberal government is our saviour in defense spending? In what way? Invented capability gaps to sole source aircraft to politically delay competition on a real new fighter that they know the F-35 will win, but they can't sole source without a competition now that Lockheed has provided a costed proposal for 18x F-35As to cover the interim fighter "gap"? Or are you impressed by increased defense spending that won't kick in until years down the road or was basically re-released previous spending (CSC but with increases to cover more ships, Army Logistic vehicles) to bump up the total "increase"? Maybe you were impressed by the Defense Policy document that promised a wide-ranging review that basically turned into a CFDS over many more years with marginal increases to capability while massive issues were left on the table like recruiting timelines, undermanning, retention, etc?

No, I was tracking that the JSF was started under the Liberals. Same as I was tracking how the Liberals started the MMEV and MGS projects and the conservatives cancelled them.

As for the Liberals somehow stalling the F35, didn't you yourself state, ""Obstructionism" is the democratic right of the Opposition parties using the rules of the Commons to oppose legislation"? The conservatives had a majority and could have bought the F35 as easily as the Liberals could have pushed through any legislation they wanted, including their excuse that the NDP/Conservatives somehow stopped electoral reform. The conversation about the F18's is irrelevant to this conservation (and has its own thread). As for the SSE policy, I dont disagree that it's probably just like the CFSD... lots of ink and not a lot of money. However, the reality is that I can say with 100% certainty that the CFSD wasn't worth the paper it was printed on once the cutbacks started. The same may or may not be able to be said about the SSE. Only time will tell (since it hasn't happened- unless you have a time machine).

Why is it that my assertion that the Liberals of today are really no different in "saying one thing and doing another" than were the CPC, the Liberals of the 90's, the PC's of the 80's, Liberals of the 70's, etc etc has to mean that I support the Liberals? I voted CPC in 2006 for fiscal prudence and got massive deficits but my parents voted liberals in the 1990s for spending and got massive cut backs. Governments always keep some promises and break others. Once the CPC takes power again in 2023-ish I can only assume that I'll say the same thing about them.
 
FSTO said:
t
So what is your opinion of the interim fighter buy and the refusal to conduct a competition for a fighter replacement until after the next election?

I think it's irrelevant to the point made in this thread and that there's already a thread for that.
 
Under the CPC we got:

C17's
C130J
Leased and then bought Chinooks
Leased and then bought Leopard 2

They waffled on the F35 in line with Martin and the current Liberal government
They stumbled on the Arctic but at least brought the issue into the light, with some work being done and still underway.
 
In other political news ...
The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced that by-elections will be held on October 23, 2017, in the following two electoral districts:

    Sturgeon River–Parkland, Alberta
    Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
I think it's irrelevant to the point made in this thread and that there's already a thread for that.

So it's not a political issue in 2017, you're saying?
 
Good2Golf said:
So it's not a political issue in 2017, you're saying?

Yes, it is certainly an issue in 2017, but is irrelevant to the issue being stated in that it has no bearing on the argument that "all governments keep some promises but break others". That's literally the only point being made- there's no comment on the efficacy of the LPC in 2017 nor of the CPC in 2006-2015, etc. the exception was the point on the CFSD as it was brought up by others. That, however, is irrelevant to the initial point.
 
The less of their agenda that the Liberals achieve, the happier I am, so I'm not complaining at all.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Yes, it is certainly an issue in 2017, but is irrelevant to the issue being stated in that it has no bearing on the argument that "all governments keep some promises but break others". That's literally the only point being made- there's no comment on the efficacy of the LPC in 2017 nor of the CPC in 2006-2015, etc. the exception was the point on the CFSD as it was brought up by others. That, however, is irrelevant to the initial point.

Wrong.

This thread is to discuss the political aspects of a number of issues being dealt with by the various political parties.  It is not just a "all parties break their promises, so we shouldn't be discussing this issue - it's irrelevant" tread.

Other threads with specific subjects cover the ranges of issues related to those subjects, and while political aspects can be considered valid for inclusion there, this thread is equally valid within which to discuss the principally political aspects of current issues.  If you think it's irrelevant, then fine, we won't miss you while you sit in the Interim Fighter or CF-18 replacement threads, keeping your view of all things aircraft fenced in there.

:2c:

G2G
 
Good2Golf said:
Wrong.

This thread is to discuss the political aspects of a number of issues being dealt with by the various political parties.  It is not just a "all parties break their promises, so we shouldn't be discussing this issue - it's irrelevant" tread.

Other threads with specific subjects cover the ranges of issues related to those subjects, and while political aspects can be considered valid for inclusion there, this thread is equally valid within which to discuss the principally political aspects of current issues.  If you think it's irrelevant, then fine, we won't miss you while you sit in the Interim Fighter or CF-18 replacement threads, keeping your view of all things aircraft fenced in there.

:2c:

G2G

Not wrong. Context is the issue in that the question back was not relevant to the original point. I understand that "Politics 2017" can be about anything to do with politics, including the CF-18 replacement. Do you understand that the topic is irrelevant to the conversation to that point?  But if we must...

The purchase of Super Hornets or whatever comes out of it is clearly not a long term solution and is clearly as a result of a poorly planned election promise. However, the origins of the problem lay in the CPC stating publicly that they would buy the F-35 and than backing out of that promise for what can only be considered to be political reasons. The LPC/NDP were in opposition and opposed in the same manner the CPC is now. The CPC backed out as they feared the blowback on the upcoming election (which ironically didn't matter since they lost anyway... the only difference it made was that the RCAF could have had F35s with a Liberal government). Yes, the LPC started the F35 program, but that doesn't matter one iota to the CPC cancelling it. They cancelled it for political reasons, same as the Liberals are trying to make this "interim" buy for political reasons. The CPC said they would purchase it and didn't while Trudeau said he wouldn't and didn't, so I guess the Liberals were at least honest, if not terribly misguided.

My personal feeling is that the best case scenario is that the LPC agreed to purchase the Super Hornet's in the hope that the F35 would become "operational" to the point of being non-controversial so that they could purchase it with less political fallout. My more cynical sides leads me to believe that the LPC offered to buy Super Hornets in order to let them bridge to the next election or further to avoid having to make a decision. In terms of politics I think both parties (CPC and Liberal) understand deep down that very very few Canadians truly care what sort of fighter aircraft we have and less are likely to make that a voting criteria. I also think both parties are unlikely to go far out on a limb for the military for the same reason. once Afghanistan ended and the brief period of public interest the CAF had ended so did the money.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
My personal feeling is that the best case scenario is that the LPC agreed to purchase the Super Hornet's in the hope that the F35 would become "operational" to the point of being non-controversial so that they could purchase it with less political fallout.

That's funny, considering they campaigned on a promise to never buy the F-35.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Please review my initial point on governments and promises.
Review the part where the Liberals campaigned on being different. They don't get a free pass on reneging on promises everytime you need to prove an argument.

I know it's difficult going from PMSH who did a majority of what he said he'd do and nothing his opponents accused him of hiding, to PMJT who will say anything to your face to get a vote or social media like but really mean very little of it, but you're going to have to keep up to what's actually happening.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
...Yes, the LPC started the F35 program, but that doesn't matter one iota to the CPC cancelling it. They cancelled it for political reasons, same as the Liberals are trying to make this "interim" buy for political reasons. The CPC said they would purchase it and didn't while Trudeau said he wouldn't and didn't, so I guess the Liberals were at least honest, if not terribly misguided...

Factually wrong.

The Harper Government cancelled nothing.  In fact, during the Harper Government's tenure, they signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development (PSFD) MOU in 2006 and several MOU renewals prior to 2015.

To not arbitrarily approve the project through exploitation of a majority government position while opposition parties were opposing the acquisition, is not a cancellation.

And the issue is still relevant to this thread.

G2G
 
PuckChaser said:
I know it's difficult going from PMSH who did a majority of what he said he'd do

We are still burdened with the Chretien/Rock Firearms Act 2.2 decades later, despite initial promises to repeal it completely.

I know many firearms owners who either did not vote or voted for somebody else as punishment during the last election.
 
Good2Golf said:
Factually wrong.

The Harper Government cancelled nothing.  In fact, during the Harper Government's tenure, they signed the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development (PSFD) MOU in 2006 and several MOU renewals prior to 2015.

To not arbitrarily approve the project through exploitation of a majority government position while opposition parties were opposing the acquisition, is not a cancellation.

And the issue is still relevant to this thread.

G2G

I'll concede that the project wasn't cancelled. The fact that the Conservatives announced on 16 Jul 10 that they were going to procure 65 x F35 and reset the process in Dec 2012 for political reasons. That or it was CPC incompetence in not undertaking the proper contracting/procurement steps and following regulations. Either way, the fact that the F35 didn't start delivery is a CPC error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top