Prime Minister questioned about expenses

[Lumber]

They need to reinforce the still not ready mantra.  There has not been any real outrageous scandal per se but there has not been a lot of accomplishments either.

After 4 years running the executive of our country, I'd definitely say he's more qualified than Sheer or Singh. You might not agree with his policies or decisions, but not "ready"? Who's more ready to do a job: two guys who've never done it, or someone who's been doing it for 4 years. Someone else might be a different matter...

:2c:

 

[Remius]

After 4 years running the executive of our country, I'd definitely say he's more qualified than Sheer or Singh. You might not agree with his policies or decisions, but not "ready"? Who's more ready to do a job: two guys who've never done it, or someone who's been doing it for 4 years. Someone else might be a different matter...

:2c:

That isn't the point of what I was trying to get across.

 

[PuckChaser]

After 4 years running the executive of our country, I'd definitely say he's more qualified than Sheer or Singh.

Considering there's no "Prime Minister Course" to qualify someone, I'd argue being terrible at something does not make you qualified. I flew a Herc once for a few minutes, I'm not qualified nor more qualified than anyone else to do it...

 

[Lumber]

That isn't the point of what I was trying to get across.

I'm confused. You said they need to keep pushing the "still not ready mantra", and I'm saying that would be a mistake, because out of the 3 of them, I think he's currently the most ready to take that job.

Considering there's no "Prime Minister Course" to qualify someone, I'd argue being terrible at something does not make you qualified. I flew a Herc once for a few minutes, I'm not qualified nor more qualified than anyone else to do it...

If I had to pick someone to fly a Herc, and my options were you, or someone who had never flown a Herc, I'd pick you.

 

[Halifax Tar]

After 4 years running the executive of our country, I'd definitely say he's more qualified than Sheer or Singh. You might not agree with his policies or decisions, but not "ready"? Who's more ready to do a job: two guys who've never done it, or someone who's been doing it for 4 years. Someone else might be a different matter...

:2c:

So Harper was right then and we should have left him at the helm. 

 

[Remius]

The CPC were touting their guy as the the most qualified and they lost.

It isn't about the most qualified it is about "told you so".  Or the perception of that.

Convince the electorate that you were right last time.  We told you he wasn't ready now look at where we are.  They even have a sound bite of Trudeau saying that he didn't realise how hard dealing with China is until he became PM.  Highlight his lack of judgement, from india to ticking off the US administration during the G7.  Trudeau's popularity is at an all time low and they need to capitalise on that.  But like I said, I don't think they have the leaders to be able to effectively get that across. 

And as John Ivison wrote in an opinion piece, Scheer now has a problem going into this election with what sort of promises he has to make given that he has cried foul on the deficit (does he pull a chapter from Doug Ford's book or will people see through that).

For the LPC it is all about painting the CPC as the boogeymen looking to cut and have a hidden social conservative platform.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm not sure whether 'running the executive' is what you can call what he's doing. Most would agree, he's the worst PM to ever come along. Has put our country in massive debt helping the world, instead of our country. Killed our oil industry. That's just a few.
Flailing around from one social cause to the next, pushing globalism down the country's throat, bankrupting us.

The current PM's interest in Canada, is what he can take out of us before he's done and disappears.

That is not the 'experience' I want to vote back in.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Most would agree, he's the worst PM to ever come along.

Ummm.....

Not seeing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada#Other_surveys

The link provides a useful comparison of the last three academic / scholarly surveys of Prime Ministerial effectiveness.

Perhaps I misinterpreted how you defined "most"?

 

[Remius]

Agreed.

That is pushing it based on people's experiences. 

Like when trying to establish who the greatest Canadians are/were and Don cherry makes the list...

 

[Rifleman62]

The short-term prime ministers were ranked as follows:

Doesn't state who ranked the third list as done on the first two.

 

[JesseWZ]

I'm not sure whether 'running the executive' is what you can call what he's doing. Most would agree, he's the worst PM to ever come along...

The current PM's interest in Canada, is what he can take out of us before he's done and disappears.

That is not the 'experience' I want to vote back in.

I've cut your post up a bit in my quotes because at the heart of it are three points I can't seem to agree with, despite trying. I'm not a particular fan of the Liberal Government (this one or the one previous - which are the only two I can really comment on having lived through them as an adult).

My first point is you are implying that the PM is not "running the executive", however that's a bit of a stretch. The country is still functioning, we're all still here and it's hyperbolic to assume that because you don't like his policies, that he's actually failing at running the country. Parliament still meets, the Supreme Court still rules on matters, and the day to day running of the Executive still occurs. Just because you don't like how it's occurring is moot. The point you made is that somehow the Executive is non functional, a point I would disagree with.

Second is your point that "most" would agree he's the worst to ever come along. I've yet to see a poll, analysis, article, scholarly representation or anything beyond a meme published by a right wing Facebook group to suggest that. In fact, I'd say outside of some of the more extreme echo chambers out there, mostpeople don't have a strong opinion one way or another about the PM or where he ranks. He may be the worst PM for you given how much your politics diverge, but it's inaccurate to assume because he is the worst for you he is the worst for everyone. I've met a lot of people (some even in the CAF) that really admire the PM, and I've met some that really despise him, but I can't say that one outweighs the other. Which brings me to my last point:

Maybe I'm naïve, or I've drank too much Left Coast water, but I truly do believe most politicians at all levels enter politics because they genuinely believe in their cause. I believe this of Scheer, Singh and Trudeau. I disagree with most but not all of the direction Trudeau has taken this country, but I can't agree with you it's out of some partisan self interest to enrich himself and disappear. Maybe I'm a bit of a globalist myself - but I've yet to see immigration as a threat to our way of life (legal or otherwise), the sky hasn't been falling in my world, and mostly it's been business as usual. Nearly every time my less moderate friends on both sides of the spectrum post a meme, I cringe at the inaccuracies, hyperbole and sometimes outright falsehoods portrayed therein.

I admire politicians because of their ability to handle an extremely intense scrutiny of their lives, background, past and what seems like every goddamn choice they make whether it matters to the public interest or not. I could certainly never handle that scrutiny. I barely tolerate the scrutiny I work under now.

So to sum up, I'm respectfully disagreeing with your post.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And thats fine. I dont expect everyone to agree. Fully or partially. Recent polls suggest his polling is in the dumper. If he has done.anything right.
I seriously want to hear an arguement that he is doing good for the country. Shutting down oil progress, carbon taxes that will have nothing to do with climate  change. Uncontrolled illegal immigtration. Uncontrolled spending. Stealing private banking info. His trade deals are amatuerish and harmful. He embarrasses us on the world stage. Alienated the western provinces. Bailing out Bombardier again. His advisor Butts ruined Ontario, and hes operating the same policies at the federal level on behalf of the PM.
Do you think hes operating for Canadians? Or the globalist, open border folks.
Now, I realize there are people here in various government positions requiring loyalty to the.government. Some may like to cozy up, hoping for future employment and a pox on positions right or wrong. Some have the balls to speak out, some don't. I'll listen but might not agree. Some I'd be willing to respond to. I dont respond to those on my ignore list.
Someone please show me where hes helping Canada and Canadians.

 

[PuckChaser]

He's not doing a good job across the country according to his approval rating, which has dropped 20% in 6 months. That puts him as the 5th worst approval rating in Canadian PM history (right behind his father who was mid-mandate). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada_by_approval_rating

Also looking at that list, the only folks to poll that low within a year of an election and win were Pearson and Chretien. Others set their marks mid-mandate (Harper, Trudeau Sr) or lost (Martin, Campbell, Diefenbaker, Clark, Mulroney).

If he was doing a good job, he'd poll better. Even the Ottawa press gallery is turning on him.

 

[JesseWZ]

And thats fine. I dont expect everyone to agree. His advisor Butts ruined Ontario, and hes operating the same policies at the federal level on behalf of the PM.
Do you think hes operating for Canadians? Or the globalist, open border folks.
Now, I realize there are people here in various government positions requiring loyalty to the.government. Some may like to cozy up, hoping for future employment and a pox on positions right or wrong. Some have the balls to speak out, some don't. I'll listen but might not agree. Some I'd be willing to respond to. I dont respond to those on my ignore list.
Someone please show me where hes helping Canada and Canadians.

I'm just going to respond to a couple of your points. The one I highlighted in yellow assumes that no Canadian is a "globalist open border folk" when in all likelihood a substantial portion of the PM's current support comes from people at varying degrees of that spectrum. Are they no longer Canadian because they don't share your values? It's a very black and white view of what I see as a pretty grey reality.

I'm not sure if your point I've highlighted in red is aimed at me or not. I'm going to assume it's not but it still assumes a zero sum game regarding other peoples political views. The way it reads is either someone is masking their true (right wing) view point in order to get some type of patronage appointment or simply keep their job - or they have the balls as it were to speak against the government. There are a multitude of scenarios where neither of those conditions exist - and I would argue 95% of all people, and certainly 95% of people on this forum fall outside of the two arcs you just identified. There are plenty of folks as I mentioned before who voted for the sitting government and likely will do so again. I'm in neither of those camps. I'd like to think I'm politically pragmatic (and tell others that at parties to impress them) but the reality is I just really hate hyper partisanship and misinformation and I really love to argue...

Puckchaser noted his recent approval ratings. It would be naïve (and statistically incorrect) of us to judge a sitting PM against PM's who had the benefit of a few years put between their policies and the associated outcomes. His approval rate may be poor now, but as Puckchaser noted, it isn't the poorest. I'd like to stress again that the discussion (at least in the last few posts) has centered around whether he was "the worst" PM in history - not whether he is currently polling poorly.

 

[Infanteer]

If he was doing a good job, he'd poll better.

The honeymoon is definitely over.

Four straight years of deficits.  Defence procurement is an unmitigated disaster.  Angering Asia-Pac trading partners.  Photo ops in India.  Tweeting taxpayer money to celebrities.  Bungling refugee/migrant arrivals.  Mismangement of pipelines.

It takes a lot to poll poorly in a good economy with record unemployment, but these kinds of things mean President Trump can get better numbers.  People aren't falling for diplomacy by socks anymore....

 

[Jarnhamar]

Honest question, were the Conservatives this flippant with money? Maybe I'm just getting older and trying to be more cognizant of money and the amount of taxes I pay but the Liberals seem to give a lot away.

There was a list going around of all the money the Liberals have given away since coming into office and it was unbelievable, I wish I saved it.

Maybe our collective problem is that such large amounts of money is so hard to relate to that 50 million dollars is just a snooty sounding tweet rather than something that would take a corporal 766 years to earn.

 

[Rifleman62]

This may not be the list you are referring to.

I posted this sometime ago. From July 2017, the article on how to use the info:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3600967/tracking-federal-government-spending/

NOTEBOOK: How we use Twitter to keep track of thousands of federal government spending announcements - By David Akin

Extract as of 27 Jul 17:

1.

Thanks to this database, we can tell you that nearly two years into the 42nd Parliament, the Trudeau government has made about 6,800 different funding announcements letting MPs take credit for a combined $31-billion in spending on everything from a new sewer line to a new roof on a curling club to new research labs to new affordable housing projects. By contrast, the Harper government, over the entire length of the 41st Parliament (3 years, 2 months), made 7,308 spending announcements for a combined $45 billion.

2.

And just about all of those are also on Twitter via a special Twitter account I’ve set up called @OttawaSpends. Every time I put a spending announcement in my database, I also tweet it out. If you follow @OttawaSpends, you too can track every federal government spending announcement.

I would hazard a guess that the Trudeau gov't spending is now in the range of astronomical based on the deficit and debt. If you look at @HarjitSajjan , @CanadianForces , there sure a lot of "Studies" going on at DND.


The Twitter account: https://twitter.com/ottawaspends

 

[Remius]

Honest question, were the Conservatives this flippant with money? Maybe I'm just getting older and trying to be more cognizant of money and the amount of taxes I pay but the Liberals seem to give a lot away.

There was a list going around of all the money the Liberals have given away since coming into office and it was unbelievable, I wish I saved it.

Maybe our collective problem is that such large amounts of money is so hard to relate to that 50 million dollars is just a snooty sounding tweet rather than something that would take a corporal 766 years to earn.

I would argue yes. I think it is more of a politician thing regardless of their party.  Remember all those economic action plan commercials that were essentially partisan advertising for the conservatives?  That cost us almost 3 quarters of a billion dollars in total.  Or painting their plane etc etc. 

 

[Journeyman]

... just really hate hyper partisanship and misinformation ...

Good luck.  That's all some people have;  you can try providing facts, but it seldom gets past the obtuse partisanship.

 

[Rifleman62]

I would argue yes. I think it is more of a politician thing regardless of their party.  Remember all those economic action plan commercials that were essentially partisan advertising for the conservatives?  That cost us almost 3 quarters of a billion dollars in total.  Or painting their plane etc etc.

Example:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-cpp-ads-on-nfl-playoffs-your-pension-dollars-at-work-for-the-liberals

Andrew Coyne: CPP ads on NFL playoffs — your pension dollars at work for the Liberals - 7 Jan 19
It’s even less clear how a feel-good advertising campaign contributes to anything but Liberal election prospects

Extract:

1. But the CPP isn’t a mutual fund: it doesn’t have to persuade Canadians to park their money with it. They have to, by law. No matter how irritated they may be at seeing more and more of their wages going to the CPP, there is no way they can withdraw from the plan, and no prospect of the increases being reversed. So why is the CPPIB paying — or rather, why are we paying — for expensive ads designed to make us feel good about all this “saving” and “investment”?

2. But whether the cause is internal bloat or external pressure, it is difficult to see why the CPPIB should be spending the money Canadians are forced to contribute to it on propaganda whose sole apparent purpose is to soften them up for more forcible contributing.

3. Sheer profligacy (reckless extravagance or wastefulness in the use of resources) is certainly one possibility. Spending at the CPPIB is quite literally out of control, and has been for some years, ever since the 2006 decision to switch from passive to active management, or from simply buying every stock in the market, with the aim of doing no worse than the market averages, to picking stocks selectively in an attempt to beat the market — a task at which, year in, year out, most investment managers fail.

Successive annual reports tell the tale. In 2000, when the CPPIB was founded (previously the CPP was confined to investing any spare change in provincial bonds) it had a staff of five. The CEO was paid $310,000. Total costs were $3.7 million. By 2006, it had about 150 employees, the CEO was making over a million, and costs were $118 million: considerably more, but not wildly out of line, for a fund that by then had nearly $100 billion under management.

And today? The board has over 1,500 employees. The average compensation among its top five executives is $4.5 million. And total costs have grown to $3.2 billion, or nearly one per cent of assets under management. By contrast, passively managed funds such as those offered by Vanguard or Schwab typically charge less than one tenth of one per cent of assets.