Liberal Minority Government 2021 - ????

[Halifax Tar]

Sorry, I'm vomiting the same crimes I'm speaking out against on here.

I shouldn't have brought up the CPC, as that wasn't at all part of your post. Other than that tgough, the rest of my post I feel covers the idea of why anyone WOULD vote liberal under Trudeau's leadership.

I didn't vote liberal like you in 2015, but I was definitely in the "ABC" crowd.

People are allowed to cast their vote as they see fit, and I lay my life for that freedom.

And I will also defend my right with the same vigor to scratch my head at and question why they voted for who they did.

I personally see the LPC as having a shallow and morally corrupt platform. The speak platitudes but deliver nothing but scandal and corruption. It's that position that leads me to wonder how those even further left than me, loving, accepting and socially conscious people can continue to put their mark behind someone and a party who seems to be the opposite of their convictions. I observe a hypocrisy to it that I cannot comprehend. The only conclusion I can draw is a devotion to party or a cult or personality.

Having said that, they can vote for who they wish.

 

[Lumber]

Our government is such a joke...

Hiding ‘with targets on their back,’ Afghans who served Canada are now taking it to court

A group of Afghans who worked directly for the Canadian government in Kabul are turning to the Federal Court for help to expedite their escape from the Taliban after ‘unreasonable’ delays in Ottawa’s evacuation effort.

www.thestar.com

(Sorry Lumber, I just found this article & came here to post it when I read your post above. I was going to post this regardless, it isn't meant to be a response to what you had said)

This makes me sick to my stomach to read.

This really appears to be a 'bureaucratic' problem within Immigration Canada (IRCC). The real power within IRCC is the senior bureaucrat, which is the deputy minister, Catrina Tapley (vice the minister, who's a politician). Ms. Tapley was senior member of the IRCC between 2010 and 2016 (I.e. The hayday of the Harper government). So I'm curious, since you shared this story in "this" thread, are you saying either: a. the problem (these delays) are the result of the liberal government being in power, or b. The delays are typical, but that a different party in government might have been able to do better than what a typical western bureaucracy could have achieved?

 

[Halifax Tar]

This makes me sick to my stomach to read.

This really appears to be a 'bureaucratic' problem within Immigration Canada (IRCC). The real power within IRCC is the senior bureaucrat, which is the deputy minister, Catrina Tapley (vice the minister, who's a politician). Ms. Tapley was senior member of the IRCC between 2010 and 2016 (I.e. The hayday of the Harper government). So I'm curious, since you shared this story in "this" thread, are you saying either: a. the problem (these delays) are the result of the liberal government being in power, or b. The delays are typical, but that a different party in government might have been able to do better than what a typical western bureaucracy could have achieved?

How long does a government have to be in power for it to be responsible for government policy?

 

[Lumber]

How long does a government have to be in power for it to be responsible for government policy?

Well, it was the government who made the policy, but it's the department (the bureaucracy) that is shitting the bed in implementing it.

Unless you are implying that the liberal government leadership has stepped in and given them new policy/direction that is causing these delays.

Which is entirely possible. I could honestly buy as a "not completely unreasonable possibility" that the minister (couugh cough PMO) ordered the DM to avoid bringing in refugees from religiously conservative countries because they want refugees who are more liberal minded.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well, it was the government who made the policy, but it's the department (the bureaucracy) that is shitting the bed in implementing it.

Unless you are implying that the liberal government leadership has stepped in and given them new policy/direction that is causing these delays.

Which is entirely possible. I could honestly buy as a "not completely unreasonable possibility" that the minister (couugh cough PMO) ordered the DM to avoid bringing in refugees from religiously conservative countries because they want refugees who are more liberal minded.

No my point is Harper hasn't been PM since 2015. At what point are the follow on Govs responsible for government policy ? How far back can we go ?

 

[IKnowNothing]

I personally see the LPC as having a shallow and morally corrupt platform. The speak platitudes but deliver nothing but scandal and corruption. It's that position that leads me to wonder how those even further left than me, loving, accepting and socially conscious people can continue to put their mark behind someone and a party who seems to be the opposite of their convictions. I observe a hypocrisy to it that I cannot comprehend. The only conclusion I can draw is a devotion to party or a cult or personality.

Having said that, they can vote for who they wish.

It's funny, the conclusion I draw is that CPC has made a strategic miss-step and have positioned themselves sub-optimally for what should be the easiest election in decades by not giving people an option they deem better. "Devil we know" type thing. Which given how bad Trudeau has been-polling neck and neck with him says a lot.

"The electorate is unreasonable" is a copout.

In my opinion, what the country needs right now is 4 years of a moderate, boring, PC majority. The table is set for that electoral result, but the CPC doesn't seem to want to come to dinner.

Some will say, "BUt tHE PiVoT fAileD" about the last two elections. It did. In my opinion that's because it was half-hearted pivot that the centre didn't trust, and talking out both sides left both ends of the CPC's voting spectrum uneasy, losing votes to both the LPC and PPC.

 

[Lumber]

No my point is Harper hasn't been PM since 2015. At what point are the follow on Govs responsible for government policy ? How far back can we go ?

Oh, gotcha.

That wasn't my aim. I only brought up her time under the Harper government to demonstrate and emphasize that the department is being run by a a non-partisan bureaucrat with extensive experience in immigration, not to imply that the Harper government is the source of the current problems.

 

[Remius]

No my point is Harper hasn't been PM since 2015. At what point are the follow on Govs responsible for government policy ? How far back can we go ?

I suppose it would depend on the policy and it’s rules, effect, complexity etc. I would imagine that that some policies don’t explode until they do and we see the full effect.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I suppose it would depend on the policy and it’s rules, effect, complexity etc. I would imagine that that some policies don’t explode until they do and we see the full effect.

I disagree. We need hold the sitting Gov accountable for all current legislation. Mattering not if it's thiers. It's a very slippery slope when we allow institutions of power blame predecessors for things.

Leadership requires responsibility and accountability. So if it's broke, then say it is and fix it.

And for the record should a different Gov form in the next election I will expect the same of them.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It's funny, the conclusion I draw is that CPC has made a strategic miss-step and have positioned themselves sub-optimally for what should be the easiest election in decades by not giving people an option they deem better. "Devil we know" type thing. Which given how bad Trudeau has been-polling neck and neck with him says a lot.

"The electorate is unreasonable" is a copout.

In my opinion, what the country needs right now is 4 years of a moderate, boring, PC majority. The table is set for that electoral result, but the CPC doesn't seem to want to come to dinner.

Some will say, "BUt tHE PiVoT fAileD" about the last two elections. It did. In my opinion that's because it was half-hearted pivot that the centre didn't trust, and talking out both sides left both ends of the CPC's voting spectrum uneasy, losing votes to both the LPC and PPC.

I think your view on a strategic misstep could be debated. PP seems to be doing something right.

I really don't think you have to be concerned about a PP led CPC forming a majority government. At best they will get a minority, and even then I would expect an LPC led coalition to form blocking the CPC from forming altogether.

 

[Remius]

I disagree. We need hold the sitting Gov accountable for all current legislation. Mattering not if it's thiers. It's a very slippery slope when we allow institutions of power blame predecessors for thing.

Leadership requires responsibility and accountability. So if it's broke, then say it is and fix it.

And for the record should a different Gov form in the next election I will expect the same of them.

That still does not answer the how long part. I’m speaking generalities. In some cases I would agree with you in others not. Big government policy rarely changes even with changes in government. Then there are other factors that come into play like what a government prioritized and it’s actual ability to make certain changes based on how legislation and policies are crafted and how much power the sitting government has to affect that change.

So while you disagree with the “it depends” I am not as black and white. It does depend. And it’s a myriad of pros and cons on an issue by issue basis.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That still does not answer the how long part. I’m speaking generalities. In some cases I would agree with you in others not. Big government policy rarely changes even with changes in government. Then there are other factors that come into play like what a government prioritized and it’s actual ability to make certain changes based on how legislation and policies are crafted and how much power the sitting government has to affect that change.

So while you disagree with the “it depends” I am not as black and white. It does depend. And it’s a myriad of pros and cons on an issue by issue basis.

No, I think you're being fair. I mean the day after forming Gov, obviously the new Gov needs some time to look through things to change or fix what's broken.

You're being very fair. And I agree. The actual timeline, is all opinion. Id give them a year. Some might give more, some less.

 

[Remius]

No, I think you're being fair. I mean the day after forming Gov, obviously the new Gov needs some time to look through things to change or fix what's broken.

You're being very fair. And I agree. The actual timeline, is all opinion. Id give them a year. Some might give more, some less.

Legislation can take time to craft so a year may not be a lot. I doubt a new CPC gvt would be able to undo LPC a gvt policies in the span of a year.

But it can also be the way the legislation or policy is written at the time that can hamstring a new government. I’ll give an example.

The LPC creates a new green energy deal that gives all sorts of credits to green industry plus incentives. Say a new CPC government gets into power with a minority. Two years in it realises that the deal is not working. But the policy has a poison pill that if any future government rescinds or changes the policy that would cause those companies to lose financially then the government will be on the hook to compensate them at X value times whatever cost in that time period’s actual dollar value. So the next government, who may or may not be a 2nd or 3rd minority term may decide it isn’t feasible or politically expedient to cancel the policy or law. Is it really their fault? And when does it become their fault?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Legislation can take time to craft so a year may not be a lot. I doubt a new CPC gvt would be able to undo LPC a gvt policies in the span of a year.

But it can also be the way the legislation or policy is written at the time that can hamstring a new government. I’ll give an example.

The LPC creates a new green energy deal that gives all sorts of credits to green industry plus incentives. Say a new CPC government gets into power with a minority. Two years in it realises that the deal is not working. But the policy has a poison pill that if any future government rescinds or changes the policy that would cause those companies to lose financially then the government will be on the hook to compensate them at X value times whatever cost in that time period’s actual dollar value. So the next government, who may or may not be a 2nd or 3rd minority term may decide it isn’t feasible or politically expedient to cancel the policy or law. Is it really their fault? And when does it become their fault?

If they ran on the platform of doing away with that legislation, and the population who voted them in expects them to then they should do it.

Then I would hope the try and pass some legislation to keep governments from punishing futures governments who defeat their platform.

That needs to stop on all sides. Legislation needs to evolve as the population and Government does.

 

[Remius]

If they ran on the platform of doing away with that legislation, and the population who voted them in expects them to then they should do it.

Then I would hope the try and pass some legislation to keep governments from punishing futures governments who defeat their platform.

That needs to stop on all sides. Legislation needs to evolve as the population and Government does.

I don’t disagree. And blaming a former government has or should have a limited shelf life. In this particular case the LPC can point to the CPC all they want but they have had several years to fix this.

 

[Quirky]

There's fear among some that PP will use the power of federal transfer payments (and the new provincial deal) to influence provinces to adopt more private health care.

Good.

That fear might enough to make someone vote liberal. There are many for whom tackling climate change is their most important issue, and they support the Carbon Tax regardless of the effect it is having on their budgets.

Except the Carbon tax doesn't reduce carbon emissions, it just makes things more expensive.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Good.

Except the Carbon tax doesn't reduce carbon emissions, it just makes things more expensive.

We somewhat agree I think. Transfer payments need to be renegotiated. And they need to come strings. You want the cash you support projects in the national best interest, all stop.

Basically you can have the allowance, but you have to say thank you to daddy first, and then do as your told. No more of this regionalism getting in the way of our prosperity. Or put up the middle finger and live within your own means.

And we should scuttle the carbon tax. Really, the fact is Canada will have no effect on climate change. Our impact is miniscule. And the shackles this government has put on us has only made us poorer so the LPC can claim some moral high ground in their international circle jerk of climate socialites.

 

[Jarnhamar]

There's fear among some that PP will use the power of federal transfer payments (and the new provincial deal) to influence provinces to adopt more private health care. That fear might enough to make someone vote liberal.

People are against private health care until they're sick and paying for it is a matter of life and death.

There was an article not too long ago about a life long Liberal couple who were anti private health care until one of them needed a hip replacement and they could get it much sooner by going private. Imagine that.

 

[Halifax Tar]

People are against private health care until they're sick and paying for it is a matter of life and death.

There was an article not too long ago about a life long Liberal couple who were anti private health care until one of them needed a hip replacement and they could get it much sooner by going private. Imagine that.

I think we could have a hybrid model. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The most vital decision any government makes is how it is going to deal with its requirements-resources question. Everything after that is contained in that framework (which, largely, is whether or not to take the risks of unending borrowing).

The LPC picked up the usual mantle of nonsense - the debt-GDP ratio - to pretend it could be a sugar daddy to many Canadians. That is usually presented as some kind of risk, but actually it's a gamble - no-one can truly foresee what might happen.

In the US, no-one foresaw - or at least didn't bother to force discussion of the issue - how increasing interest rates pushing down long-term bond values might affect any particular institution. Then a bank failed, and still there are people shivering a little bit wondering if large parts of the world's financial framework are at risk. The moral of the story is not that Canadian banks are at risk of that particular outcome - our banking system is substantially different (few, large, diversely invested institutions) - but that the actions of governments responding to every situation (good economy, bad economy) with overspending are irresponsible.

Most Canadians who add up the value of the things they see - recent tax cuts, increased family benefits - would, if they could bother to "see" the value of what inflation has cost them, find themselves in a net negative position. Not all of current inflation is caused by government overspending, but some of it surely is.

Nothing matters more than the decision to elect the parties least likely to keep running deficits.