• 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 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
368
Points
910
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Sure it does... debt all goes into the same lump and is "mostly" bad regardless of the party who created it.


Although he is still resting, quite comfortably, on top of the most recent polling, the last half of 2017 was less than kind to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and some of his ministers. Some people are suggesting that he and his government are looking a bit tattered ...

                   
20171014_amd001_0.jpg


... but the news isn't any better for Andrew Who? Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh, neither of whom have managed to "connect" with Canadians, close the polling gaps or win any new seats in by-elections, all of which Justin Trudeau has done.

The economy is booming, well, moving along nicely at any rate even as the national debt climbs inexorably ... as someone else has pointed out it is the people, you and me, and the companies, large and small for which we work, that grow (or shrink) the economy while governments do (relatively) little in the short to medium terms. Governments make fiscal policies and they can have beneficial (or damaging) impacts in the medium to long terms. (Monetary policy is something else, again, but also important.) I'm going to suggest that a robust economic performance in 2017 owes next to nothing to Justin Trudeau, and whatever credit is due to any politicians goes to Stephen Harper, Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien.

Military matters have received short shrift from the Trudeau Liberals ... my suggestion is that you cannot find many ways to merge the military with the prevailing green, First Nations, feminist and "sunny ways" political agenda and, therefore, the Canadian Armed Forces are of little interest to this government. Absent something exciting from Kim Jong-un or Vladimir Putin that's unlikely to change in 2018.

NAFTA is looking a bit weak and flabby ... likely to go down for the count in 2018; if that's the case will the old Canada-US Free Trade arrangement kick in again or will that get shoved aside too and will we trade on WTO rules?  The CETA was signed, but that's Stephen Harper's deal ... had nothing to do with the Trudeau regime. Free(er) trade with Asia, which i would have thought might be a priority if NAFTA is going down the drain, took a sh!t kicking in late 2017 when the prime minister decided that "virtue signalling" to win by-elections in Canada was more important than global trade ... but that's only my opinion.

2018 should be a vital year for Team Trudeau ... Canadians are most likely to forget and forgive the bumbles and bungles in 2017 as the Liberals reshape themselves for the 2019 campaign (which, in fairness, began in November 2015). As things stand, IF Prime Minister Trudeau can stay out of trouble in 2018 ~ which might mean a cabinet shuffle ~ then he looks good to be re-elected in 2018 ... it's a big IF.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
743
Points
1,060
And how politics are done in the 21st century.

Facebook and the SNP

Facebook boasts of helping the SNP achieve victory with politics unit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/26/facebook-boasts-helping-snp-achieve-victory-politics-unit/

Twitter and the Labour Party

Revealed: Twitter admits how it helped Labour win the social media general election battle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/27/revealed-twitter-admits-helped-labour-win-social-media-general/

But they weren't really biased donchano.....

The services could have been bought by the Tories too..... (if they had known about them?)

 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
653
Points
1,060
The Tories aren't the ones missing meetings on TPP to hang out with the Facebook COO. Trudeau must be old friends with her, that absolves any ethics and lobbying conflict.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,898
Points
1,040
E.R. Campbell said:
. . .
Military matters have received short shrift from the Trudeau Liberals ... my suggestion is that you cannot find many ways to merge the military with the prevailing green, First Nations, feminist and "sunny ways" political agenda and, therefore, the Canadian Armed Forces are of little interest to this government. Absent something exciting from Kim Jong-un or Vladimir Putin that's unlikely to change in 2018.
. . .
This isn't a Trudeau Minor issue but a Liberal Party issue in general for over half a century now.

Short CIA summary of Trudeau the Elder's reign.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T01058R000202840001-0.pdf

:cheers:
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
FJAG said:
This isn't a Trudeau Minor issue but a Liberal Party issue in general for over half a century now.

Short CIA summary of Trudeau the Elder's reign.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T01058R000202840001-0.pdf

:cheers:

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  The son is just like the father both in running up the deficit and doing as little as possible for the military.  You need to go back 60 years to see decent Liberal spending.
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jollyjacktar said:
The more things change, the more they stay the same.  The son is just like the father both in running up the deficit and doing as little as possible for the military.  You need to go back 60 years to see decent Liberal spending.

To be fair, you'd have to go back almost as far to see any real decent conservative spending either. The current state of the CAF is a 2 party issue
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
368
Points
910
Bird_Gunner45 said:
To be fair, you'd have to go back almost as far to see any real decent conservative spending either. The current state of the CAF is a 2 party issue

Agreed.

The last time we had any sort of "revolution" in the military was in the late very 1940s and very early 1950s when Louis St Laurent was the (Liberal) prime minister and Brook Claxton was the defence minister. They subscribed to the emerging "come-as-you-are" war theory and that meant that Canada's traditional reliance on a (mythical) strong reserve that could be quickly mobilized had to end and a tough, professional, "regular" military had to be created.

That was nearly 70 yers ago ... nothing much has changed since, except for lots and lots of cheese paring. No one has suggested a better basic model. All Paul Hellyer really wanted to do, 15 years St Laurent) was to make it, a professional, standing military, more cost effective.

Diefenbaker and Pearson subscribed to the St Laurent/Claxton doctrine but wanted to spend less and less on defence and more on social programmes; Pierre Trudeau really would have liked to disarm Canada but was persuaded to just cut deeply ~ way past the fat and into the muscle and bone; Mulroney didn't hate the military, but it wasn't a priority; Chrétien made further, deep, damaging cuts; Martin tried, briefly, to restore some strength; so did Harper ~ until 2012 when I think he just gave up on DND as a whole; Clark, Turner and Campbell didn't count.

It was a political wash, in my opinion. St Laurent was very good to, even, great on foreign and defence policy; the rest were fair to poor to god-awful (the Trudeaus, père et fils).
 

Jed

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
E.R. Campbell said:
Agreed.

The last time we had any sort of "revolution" in the military was in the late very 1940s and very early 1950s when Louis St Laurent was the (Liberal) prime minister and Brook Claxton was the defence minister. They subscribed to the emerging "come-as-you-are" war theory and that meant that Canada's traditional reliance on a (mythical) strong reserve that could be quickly mobilized had to end and a tough, professional, "regular" military had to be created.

That was nearly 70 yers ago ... nothing much has changed since, except for lots and lots of cheese paring. No one has suggested a better basic model. All Paul Hellyer really wanted to do, 15 years St Laurent) was to make it, a professional, standing military, more cost effective.

Diefenbaker and Pearson subscribed to the St Laurent/Claxton doctrine but wanted to spend less and less on defence and more on social programmes; Pierre Trudeau really would have liked to disarm Canada but was persuaded to just cut deeply ~ way past the fat and into the muscle and bone; Mulroney didn't hate the military, but it wasn't a priority; Chrétien made further, deep, damaging cuts; Martin tried, briefly, to restore some strength; so did Harper ~ until 2012 when I think he just gave up on DND as a whole; Clark, Turner and Campbell didn't count.

It was a political wash, in my opinion. St Laurent was very good to, even, great on foreign and defence policy; the rest were fair to poor to god-awful (the Trudeaus, père et fils).

I prefer fair to poor over god-awful any day of the week.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
575
Points
910
Jed said:
I prefer fair to poor over god-awful any day of the week.
By the end of the last CPC term we were heading into god awful territory.

Both parties are trash when it comes to support for the military. And there is one that would disband us altogether.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
368
Points
910
Altair said:
By the end of the last CPC term we were heading into god awful territory.

Both parties are trash when it comes to support for the military. And there is one that would disband us altogether.

But why? Why did Prime Minister Harper turn his attentions (and affections) away from the military and focus, instead, solely on deficit reduction? Some analysts believe that he could have done both: rebuilt the military, or, at least, not cut defence spending, and balanced the budget, but (and I'm agreeing with you) he decided to ignore DND and put all his efforts into balancing the budget.

I believe the answer lies in the a letter he wrote in the Spring of 2012 to then MND Peter MacKay ... it was a directive to cut "overhead," specifically in headquarters;it was a directive that was ignored.

I don't know how things are where you work, but in 37 years of soldiering and a decade in the private sector, in the tech community, I learned to recognize orders, even when they are given politely, and I learned that it was best to obey them.

What, I wonder, prompted Peter MacKay to ignore the prime minister's clear direction? Is (was) he the sort of fellow to go "off the reservation" like that? I don't think so ... I think the admirals and generals who surrounded him (and who, I have heard ~ rumours ~ had great influence over him) convinced him that:

    1. The PM was wrong, the CF's command an control superstructure was NOT bloated; and

    2. It would be a good idea to let them, the generals and admirals, manage things while he, MacKay, got out and met the troops in the field, which was something he seemed to honestly like doing.

I think you're on the right track, both parties have, indeed, ignored DND and Canada's legitimate defence needs, but cabinet is not solely to blame ... it might be that the military leadership needs to look in the mirror when it looks for the enemy.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
274
Points
910
E.R. Campbell said:
But why? Why did Prime Minister Harper turn his attentions (and affections) away from the military and focus, instead, solely on deficit reduction? Some analysts believe that he could have done both: rebuilt the military, or, at least, not cut defence spending, and balanced the budget, but (and I'm agreeing with you) he decided to ignore DND and put all his efforts into balancing the budget.

I believe the answer lies in the a letter he wrote in the Spring of 2012 to then MND Peter MacKay ... it was a directive to cut "overhead," specifically in headquarters; [http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/defence-figures-suggest-headquarters-not-cut-as-directed-1.1372007]it was a directive that was ignored[/url].

I don't know how things are where you work, but in 37 years of soldiering and a decade in the private sector, in the tech community, I learned to recognize orders, even when they are given politely, and I learned that it was best to obey them.

What, I wonder, prompted Peter MacKay to ignore the prime minister's clear direction? Is (was) he the sort of fellow to go "off the reservation" like that? I don't think so ... I think the admirals and generals who surrounded him (and who, I have heard ~ rumours ~ had great influence over him) convinced him that:

    1. The PM was wrong, the CF's command an control superstructure was NOT bloated; and

    2. It would be a good idea to let them, the generals and admirals, manage things while he, MacKay, got out and met the troops in the field, which was something he seemed to honestly like doing.

I think you're on the right track, both parties have, indeed, ignored DND and Canada's legitimate defence needs, but cabinet is not solely to blame ... it might be that the military leadership needs to look in the mirror when it looks for the enemy.

:goodpost:

I also think this is not an issue that belongs to any particular party.... each government / PM has not prioritized having any real military capability, which is an honest reflection of Canadian popular opinion quite frankly.

But, in it's current form, I also wouldn't support spending another dime on the DND / CAF until it sorts itself out. And I worry that Strong Secure Engaged will be nothing but wasted treasure... luckily I don't believe the money will actually be given to the DND.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
575
Points
910
E.R. Campbell said:
But why? Why did Prime Minister Harper turn his attentions (and affections) away from the military and focus, instead, solely on deficit reduction? Some analysts believe that he could have done both: rebuilt the military, or, at least, not cut defence spending, and balanced the budget, but (and I'm agreeing with you) he decided to ignore DND and put all his efforts into balancing the budget.

I believe the answer lies in the a letter he wrote in the Spring of 2012 to then MND Peter MacKay ... it was a directive to cut "overhead," specifically in headquarters; [http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/defence-figures-suggest-headquarters-not-cut-as-directed-1.1372007]it was a directive that was ignored[/url].

I don't know how things are where you work, but in 37 years of soldiering and a decade in the private sector, in the tech community, I learned to recognize orders, even when they are given politely, and I learned that it was best to obey them.

What, I wonder, prompted Peter MacKay to ignore the prime minister's clear direction? Is (was) he the sort of fellow to go "off the reservation" like that? I don't think so ... I think the admirals and generals who surrounded him (and who, I have heard ~ rumours ~ had great influence over him) convinced him that:

    1. The PM was wrong, the CF's command an control superstructure was NOT bloated; and

    2. It would be a good idea to let them, the generals and admirals, manage things while he, MacKay, got out and met the troops in the field, which was something he seemed to honestly like doing.

I think you're on the right track, both parties have, indeed, ignored DND and Canada's legitimate defence needs, but cabinet is not solely to blame ... it might be that the military leadership needs to look in the mirror when it looks for the enemy.
or the war was over and we had out lived our photo op usefulness
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
653
Points
1,060
Altair said:
or the war was over and we had out lived our photo op usefulness

At least we got some kit while the photo op's were good. I'd rather get something if I've got to get #$%ed afterwards. Last guys gutted us for kit and personnel and still wanted the pictures. Didn't even get offered a smoke afterwards.

774707-XL.jpg
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
813
Points
1,010
E.R. Campbell said:
But why? Why did Prime Minister Harper turn his attentions (and affections) away from the military and focus, instead, solely on deficit reduction? Some analysts believe that he could have done both: rebuilt the military, or, at least, not cut defence spending, and balanced the budget, but (and I'm agreeing with you) he decided to ignore DND and put all his efforts into balancing the budget.

Harper was nothing if not efficient.  They won elections with an extremely efficient vote spread almost ideally over the country to give them the seats they needed.  The CPC policies were specifically targeted to get maximum effect from small groups that could win in specific ridings and move them over to the CPC.  Policies like the GST cut (not very conservative cutting a consumption tax vs income tax), choice in childcare and the sports/music for your kids tax cuts.  Supporting the military would not move votes in strategic ridings.

The investment in the military was not paying off from the years previous and the war was not a popular subject.  I suspect "Harper the strategist" was frustrated by that.  So, doing what the Conservatives under him always did, they pivoted.  It wasn't like they were going to lose votes to the Liberals and NDP because they stopped supporting the military as it was obvious that the Liberals or NDP wouldn't do that either.  And it turns out that was exactly what happened; with the military (moral) support maybe even becoming a liability to them (Party of the Afghan war, F-35 sole source contract etc...).

I believe that he misjudged the demographics though.  The millenials are voting now.  And like most young adults who have nothing to protect they vote left.  It's a pretty standard voting pattern that you get more conservative as you get older.  There is also the increases in urban density and urban voters tend to vote more left as well.  And of course there was fatigue and the perception that the CPC were mean people (Canadian values...*facepalm*).

But to be fair a there were some good things from the Harper gov't for the military.  We took delivery of new tanks; the LAV UP program went ahead; the NSPS now NSS was started; C-17, new Hercs and Chinooks were purchased.  Cyclone was kicked down the field despite the temptation to cancel it.  They kept the subs under similar temptations.
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
PuckChaser said:

That photo of him looking stupid with his helmet on backwards never gets old with me.  I can only hope the present selfie loving denizen will provide a similar faux pas one day.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
653
Points
1,060
jollyjacktar said:
That photo of him looking stupid with his helmet on backwards never gets old with me.  I can only hope the present selfie loving denizen will provide a similar faux pas one day.
Probably never catch Trudeau anywhere near a place that requires a helmet. Harper, on the other hand, visited Afg 3 times, 07, 09 and 11. Trudeau's been shepherding IMPACT for over 2 years and has yet to even visit Kuwait, let alone Iraq.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
302
Points
880
PuckChaser said:
Probably never catch Trudeau anywhere near a place that requires a helmet. Harper, on the other hand, visited Afg 3 times, 07, 09 and 11. Trudeau's been shepherding IMPACT for over 2 years and has yet to even visit Kuwait, let alone Iraq.
Mr Harper visited Kandahar in 06. Either you listed a wrong year, or you missed a visit.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,408
Points
890
Underway said:
But to be fair a there were some good things from the Harper gov't for the military.  We took delivery of new tanks; the LAV UP program went ahead; the NSPS now NSS was started; C-17, new Hercs and Chinooks were purchased.  Cyclone was kicked down the field despite the temptation to cancel it.  They kept the subs under similar temptations.

Not certain that the NSPS / NSS is anything to brag about...
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
653
Points
1,060
MCG said:
Mr Harper visited Kandahar in 06. Either you listed a wrong year, or you missed a visit.
Quick Google search, definitely wasn't a hard and fast list. Thanks for the catch. Its also interesting that he went in his first year in office, in a minority government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top