- Reaction score
- 10,934
- Points
- 1,040
I only hope the PM and his ministers continue to meet with their provincial counterparts frequently. So many people seem to think it is so important, and for my part I think it is so very entertaining.
PMJT: The First 100 Days
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 560
Chris Pook said:
Right about now.
In both the United States and in Europe there are growing movements to support formerly fringe or marginalized political movements, or elect "outsiders" who claim to lead the revolt against the "Elites".
I think the Republicans made a terrible mistake when they worked to marginalize or coopt the TEA Party and TEA Party candidates and representatives. Since voters got a clear "FU" signal from the people who supposedly represent them, they will go to further extremes (Trump and Sanders in this cycle) and the far left nativist parties gaining traction in Europe.
The real question is what happens next when voters elect people promising fundamental changes who don't deliver what the voters elected them to do? History does not give pretty answers.
- Reaction score
- 26,488
- Points
- 1,360
So we're about seven weeks away from the end of the fiscal year FY15/16.
Let's see how the Gov't does on this Policy promise? (ref: REAL CHANGE: A Plan to Strengthen the Economy and Create Jobs Investing in the the Navy )
op:
Let's see how the Gov't does on this Policy promise? (ref: REAL CHANGE: A Plan to Strengthen the Economy and Create Jobs Investing in the the Navy )
op:
- Reaction score
- 7,331
- Points
- 1,360
:nod:Good2Golf said:So we're about seven weeks away from the end of the fiscal year FY15/16.
Let's see how the Gov't does on this Policy promise? (ref: REAL CHANGE: A Plan to Strengthen the Economy and Create Jobs Investing in the the Navy )
- Reaction score
- 7,181
- Points
- 1,190
Good2Golf said:So we're about seven weeks away from the end of the fiscal year FY15/16.
Let's see how the Gov't does on this Policy promise? (ref: REAL CHANGE: A Plan to Strengthen the Economy and Create Jobs Investing in the the Navy )
Considering the HEA lawsuit was the only one the Liberals didn't drop, I wouldn't hold my breath for more support for CAF families.
- Reaction score
- 7,331
- Points
- 1,360
Maybe not so fast ...PuckChaser said:
As others with loads more experience in unions than I have has said here, while public service unions may be strong, the employer can do (pretty much) whatever they want.
- Reaction score
- 26,488
- Points
- 1,360
Gutsy move. My sense was that a lot of PSAC folks were very unhappy with PMSH, and that they likely formed a significant portion of the base that ensured a near-clean Red sweep of the NCR. Maybe Orange would have been a better bet?
:2c:
G2G
:2c:
G2G
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
milnews.ca said:
Just ANOTHER large voting base dupped
- Reaction score
- 7,331
- Points
- 1,360
So far I haven't heard anything come down via the PSAC chain, but I'm expecting a response proportionate to the kick in the 'nads given ;DSheep Dog AT said:
- Reaction score
- 89
- Points
- 330
Considering TBS had begun working on sick leave reform under the previous Liberal government prior to 2006 the unions seem to have been totally bamboozled by PMJT's skittles pooping unicorn. Schadenfreude is such a fine word
- Reaction score
- 7,331
- Points
- 1,360
Should have read the fine print, I guess ...cavalryman said:
... or, more specifically, from the Liberal info-machine pre-election (see attached):
Not zackly the same as "we're not going to touch sick leave" ...
- Reaction score
- 16,415
- Points
- 1,160
milnews.ca said:
PSAC leadership is likely attempting to fit this into the narrative they pushed.
- Reaction score
- 7,331
- Points
- 1,360
Square peg, meet roundish hole >Colin P said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
milnews.ca said:
exactly, some ppl read what they want to hear and some then get unrealistic expectations which, regardless of political affiliation, are never met...
every time.
But I am a "glass half full" guy so I'm optimist that 'somethin' positive will get done before it's time to kick this crowd out ;D
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 223
- Points
- 710
PanaEng said:
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20191021T00&p0=188&font=cursive
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 223
- Points
- 710
Lumber said:
LOL! [
Someone else found that. If you can't see the humour in that reply to a post, I apologize.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/02/07/trudeau-spurns-ndp-votes-he-once-courted
Trudeau spurns NDP votes he once courted
By Tom Parkin, Postmedia Network
First posted: Sunday, February 07, 2016 08:22 PM MST | Updated: Sunday, February 07, 2016 08:26 PM MST
In a show that ran last Sunday, “Neil from London” was among the ten “ordinary Canadians” the CBC picked to chat with Prime Minister Trudeau. Among his questions: do you agree the minimum wage should go up?
If you watched the Liberals’ last campaign, you’d expect Trudeau to quickly say yes. Trudeau supported an NDP plan to boost the federal minimum wage to $15, but criticised it for not covering enough people.
But this week, when Neil from London asked about it, Trudeau dodged. And then said he worried about negative effects from raising the minimum wage. His answer wasn’t clear. But the message sure was: there’ll be no minimum wage increase.
This and many other promises have outlived their usefulness to the Liberals. They were useful to attract enough NDP voters to win. But mission accomplished.
Some of the Liberals’ promises were just plucked from air – the most famous being Trudeau’s pledge to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees by Dec. 31. The government couldn’t deliver much more than 6,000. Made a good headline though.
It seems other fictions they had no intention to keep.
Trudeau promised consultations on Harper’s TPP. But last week, his government signed it – without consultations or even an economic impact assessment.
He said he’d end air bombing in Iraq, but now might extend it – he’s set no withdrawal date, even though approval for Harper’s mission expires in about 35 days.
He told communities he’d “restore” home mail delivery cancelled by Harper – but now only talks of “review.”
Trudeau told First Nations they’d “absolutely” get a veto on pipelines over their land -- but last week offered bafflegab when invited to repeat that pledge.
He told environmentalists any current pipeline assessment “needs to be redone.” But Energy East and Kinder Morgan processes continue uninterrupted.
He promised transparency, but cancelled all-party budget consultations.
And some Liberal promises were simply deceptive. Trudeau’s headline promise was a tax cut for the middle class. But buried in the fine print was his absurd definition of it. His plan gives nothing to workers earning $45,000 or less – and the biggest pay-out to a $200,000 income. Whose crazy definition of middle class is that?
But perhaps the biggest campaign deception may still be revealed. Trudeau promised three years of $10 billion deficits for massive infrastructure investment. On budget day, see if Trudeau’s investment hits that number.
The problem isn’t only that broken promises erode trust in our leaders. It’s also that most of those now-jettisoned promises were – and still are – right for Canada.
We badly need infrastructure investment. Take the case of Toronto’s transit. Six years ago, Dalton McGuinty played an infrastructure bait-and-switch game. He first promised massive transit investment to Toronto, then cut $4 billion from its Transit City expansion plan. Commuters are still suffering. We can’t play that game anymore.
And we need to stop signing bad trade deals. If you’re a billionaire who wants to move production to a low-wage zone then sell your goods back to North America without paying tariffs, TPP is a deal made for you – literally.
But if your job or investment is in Canada, it’s a terrible agreement. That’s why such diverse voices are upset – dairy farmers, auto manufacturers, auto unions -- BlackBerry co-founder Jim Balsillie calls it innovation “colonialism.” Strong words.
And, Neil from London, yes we absolutely need to increase minimum wages to ensure a living income. This is Canada.
New Democrats, whose party got outplayed by Liberals promises, can take heart knowing their policies are supported by a broad spectrum of Canadians. But with two critical provincial campaigns this spring and two more next year, the challenge remains: how do you defeat a fundamentally dishonest political style?
Trudeau spurns NDP votes he once courted
By Tom Parkin, Postmedia Network
First posted: Sunday, February 07, 2016 08:22 PM MST | Updated: Sunday, February 07, 2016 08:26 PM MST
In a show that ran last Sunday, “Neil from London” was among the ten “ordinary Canadians” the CBC picked to chat with Prime Minister Trudeau. Among his questions: do you agree the minimum wage should go up?
If you watched the Liberals’ last campaign, you’d expect Trudeau to quickly say yes. Trudeau supported an NDP plan to boost the federal minimum wage to $15, but criticised it for not covering enough people.
But this week, when Neil from London asked about it, Trudeau dodged. And then said he worried about negative effects from raising the minimum wage. His answer wasn’t clear. But the message sure was: there’ll be no minimum wage increase.
This and many other promises have outlived their usefulness to the Liberals. They were useful to attract enough NDP voters to win. But mission accomplished.
Some of the Liberals’ promises were just plucked from air – the most famous being Trudeau’s pledge to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees by Dec. 31. The government couldn’t deliver much more than 6,000. Made a good headline though.
It seems other fictions they had no intention to keep.
Trudeau promised consultations on Harper’s TPP. But last week, his government signed it – without consultations or even an economic impact assessment.
He said he’d end air bombing in Iraq, but now might extend it – he’s set no withdrawal date, even though approval for Harper’s mission expires in about 35 days.
He told communities he’d “restore” home mail delivery cancelled by Harper – but now only talks of “review.”
Trudeau told First Nations they’d “absolutely” get a veto on pipelines over their land -- but last week offered bafflegab when invited to repeat that pledge.
He told environmentalists any current pipeline assessment “needs to be redone.” But Energy East and Kinder Morgan processes continue uninterrupted.
He promised transparency, but cancelled all-party budget consultations.
And some Liberal promises were simply deceptive. Trudeau’s headline promise was a tax cut for the middle class. But buried in the fine print was his absurd definition of it. His plan gives nothing to workers earning $45,000 or less – and the biggest pay-out to a $200,000 income. Whose crazy definition of middle class is that?
But perhaps the biggest campaign deception may still be revealed. Trudeau promised three years of $10 billion deficits for massive infrastructure investment. On budget day, see if Trudeau’s investment hits that number.
The problem isn’t only that broken promises erode trust in our leaders. It’s also that most of those now-jettisoned promises were – and still are – right for Canada.
We badly need infrastructure investment. Take the case of Toronto’s transit. Six years ago, Dalton McGuinty played an infrastructure bait-and-switch game. He first promised massive transit investment to Toronto, then cut $4 billion from its Transit City expansion plan. Commuters are still suffering. We can’t play that game anymore.
And we need to stop signing bad trade deals. If you’re a billionaire who wants to move production to a low-wage zone then sell your goods back to North America without paying tariffs, TPP is a deal made for you – literally.
But if your job or investment is in Canada, it’s a terrible agreement. That’s why such diverse voices are upset – dairy farmers, auto manufacturers, auto unions -- BlackBerry co-founder Jim Balsillie calls it innovation “colonialism.” Strong words.
And, Neil from London, yes we absolutely need to increase minimum wages to ensure a living income. This is Canada.
New Democrats, whose party got outplayed by Liberals promises, can take heart knowing their policies are supported by a broad spectrum of Canadians. But with two critical provincial campaigns this spring and two more next year, the challenge remains: how do you defeat a fundamentally dishonest political style?
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-will-it-be-paris-or-calgary-mr-trudeau
Rex Murphy: Will it be Paris or Calgary, Mr. Trudeau?
Rex Murphy | February 8, 2016 | Last Updated: Feb 8 5:49 AM ET
What will it be, Paris or Calgary? That is the question.
Are the commitments made so energetically and with such a show of elan in Paris superior to the need to give support and relief to the oil industry in Calgary? Indeed, the commitments made in Paris run counter to the needs of Calgary (let Calgary here stand for all Alberta). One cannot make huge pledges to reduce carbon emissions one week and wax all enthusiastic about giving federal support to pipelines intended to carry Alberta oil the next. The two agendas are simply not compatible.
Thus, the debate over pipelines is not about the pipelines themselves, as there is really only one question that a debate over pipelines has to answer: will they be safe? With the technologies and expertise already available, that’s a question accessible to an “evidence-based” inquiry. It is not one that takes years or introduces novel concepts like “social license,” or requires the stamp of approval from herds of mayors.
If pipelines are not safe, they should not be built. If, however, they are safe, and can be proven to be so within the limits of human scientific competence, then all other questions disappear. Safety is the social license. It is the political license. It is the economic license. Thus, there is no call for any other direction of inquiry once that fundamental question has been answered.
Translation: denying the pipeline burnished his administration’s own green credentials. The symbolism was more important than the facts of the project itself.
If, however, the goal of the federal government is to be a “leader” in green politics, if reducing carbon emissions is its desired passport to winning the outside world’s esteem, then saying yes to pipelines is not a response grounded in the evidence concerning how safe they are. Rather, it is contingent on the outside world’s response to such an approval.
What will UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon say? What will the luminaries of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change think? What will the Leonardo DiCaprios, the Neil Youngs and the Bonos of the world think if this fresh, green government, if it were to allow one of the proposed pipelines to take shape?
They would be heart-struck down to their caring boots, and disillusioned with the new, greener Canada. They would revive the harsh rhetoric of Canada as a vicious “petro state.” Young would compose a ballad about Hiroshima. David Suzuki would sink into another sulk and call for various imprisonments. I do not think it would be safe to call on Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.
So all the talk about revised National Energy Board (NEB) guidelines may reasonably be seen as a kind of political hat trick designed to give the illusion that these pipelines have a hope of ever being approved. Deep down, however, the lines are drawn and the real position has already been declared. It follows U.S. President Barack Obama’s pattern of doing exactly the same thing. After seven or eight years and multiple studies that all advocated for the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, Obama, on the very eve of the Paris summit, announced he was turning down the project. And please note his stated, highest-priority reason: the decision reflected America’s determination to be a global leader in the fight against climate change. His own words are: “Frankly, approving that project would have undercut that global leadership.”
John Kerry, his secretary of state, said the same: “The critical factor in my determination was this: moving forward with this project would significantly undermine our ability to continue leading the world in combating climate change.” Translation: denying the pipeline burnished his administration’s own green credentials. The symbolism was more important than the facts of the project itself. Because activists, as the Guardian noted, had made Keystone a “totemic issue” — i.e., one of value for its symbolic quality — the U.S. president had to turn it down.
And that’s where Canada is now. It has precisely the same ambition: to be seen as a world leader against the speculative horrors of a warming future. Under the auspices of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, how we look on the world stage trumps the interests of the country itself. It’s better to be pleasing in Paris than caring in Calgary.
Even if Energy East were to survive the new NEB regulations, the cabinet could still turn it down. That was Trudeau’s position this week. It’s all a shadow dance. There is no appeasement of the forces against Alberta energy. Killing the oilsands is their goal, and killing the pipelines under any guise — safety, social license, upstream emissions — is the sly path to killing the oilsands
Combine that with the Liberal’s zeal to be seen as the greenest global government, and there is really no hope down the road. There is no debate. The decision is made, but for now it is merely waiting for a more opportune time to make itself known.
National Post
Editted to add link.
Rex Murphy: Will it be Paris or Calgary, Mr. Trudeau?
Rex Murphy | February 8, 2016 | Last Updated: Feb 8 5:49 AM ET
What will it be, Paris or Calgary? That is the question.
Are the commitments made so energetically and with such a show of elan in Paris superior to the need to give support and relief to the oil industry in Calgary? Indeed, the commitments made in Paris run counter to the needs of Calgary (let Calgary here stand for all Alberta). One cannot make huge pledges to reduce carbon emissions one week and wax all enthusiastic about giving federal support to pipelines intended to carry Alberta oil the next. The two agendas are simply not compatible.
Thus, the debate over pipelines is not about the pipelines themselves, as there is really only one question that a debate over pipelines has to answer: will they be safe? With the technologies and expertise already available, that’s a question accessible to an “evidence-based” inquiry. It is not one that takes years or introduces novel concepts like “social license,” or requires the stamp of approval from herds of mayors.
If pipelines are not safe, they should not be built. If, however, they are safe, and can be proven to be so within the limits of human scientific competence, then all other questions disappear. Safety is the social license. It is the political license. It is the economic license. Thus, there is no call for any other direction of inquiry once that fundamental question has been answered.
Translation: denying the pipeline burnished his administration’s own green credentials. The symbolism was more important than the facts of the project itself.
If, however, the goal of the federal government is to be a “leader” in green politics, if reducing carbon emissions is its desired passport to winning the outside world’s esteem, then saying yes to pipelines is not a response grounded in the evidence concerning how safe they are. Rather, it is contingent on the outside world’s response to such an approval.
What will UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon say? What will the luminaries of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change think? What will the Leonardo DiCaprios, the Neil Youngs and the Bonos of the world think if this fresh, green government, if it were to allow one of the proposed pipelines to take shape?
They would be heart-struck down to their caring boots, and disillusioned with the new, greener Canada. They would revive the harsh rhetoric of Canada as a vicious “petro state.” Young would compose a ballad about Hiroshima. David Suzuki would sink into another sulk and call for various imprisonments. I do not think it would be safe to call on Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.
So all the talk about revised National Energy Board (NEB) guidelines may reasonably be seen as a kind of political hat trick designed to give the illusion that these pipelines have a hope of ever being approved. Deep down, however, the lines are drawn and the real position has already been declared. It follows U.S. President Barack Obama’s pattern of doing exactly the same thing. After seven or eight years and multiple studies that all advocated for the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, Obama, on the very eve of the Paris summit, announced he was turning down the project. And please note his stated, highest-priority reason: the decision reflected America’s determination to be a global leader in the fight against climate change. His own words are: “Frankly, approving that project would have undercut that global leadership.”
John Kerry, his secretary of state, said the same: “The critical factor in my determination was this: moving forward with this project would significantly undermine our ability to continue leading the world in combating climate change.” Translation: denying the pipeline burnished his administration’s own green credentials. The symbolism was more important than the facts of the project itself. Because activists, as the Guardian noted, had made Keystone a “totemic issue” — i.e., one of value for its symbolic quality — the U.S. president had to turn it down.
And that’s where Canada is now. It has precisely the same ambition: to be seen as a world leader against the speculative horrors of a warming future. Under the auspices of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, how we look on the world stage trumps the interests of the country itself. It’s better to be pleasing in Paris than caring in Calgary.
Even if Energy East were to survive the new NEB regulations, the cabinet could still turn it down. That was Trudeau’s position this week. It’s all a shadow dance. There is no appeasement of the forces against Alberta energy. Killing the oilsands is their goal, and killing the pipelines under any guise — safety, social license, upstream emissions — is the sly path to killing the oilsands
Combine that with the Liberal’s zeal to be seen as the greenest global government, and there is really no hope down the road. There is no debate. The decision is made, but for now it is merely waiting for a more opportune time to make itself known.
National Post
Editted to add link.
- Status
