Federal Government & Politics II

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

A new leader who is reasonably good wouldn't be able to prevent a CPC majority, but it would limit the damage. The LPC might end up with 100 seats in opposition to a 180-seat CPC majority government, as opposed to 40 seats in opposition to a 240-seat CPC majority government. And more importantly, with a new leader who is reasonably good, they'd be able to rebuild faster and stand a better shot at regaining power in 2029.

At the moment it is hard to imagine anyone who could pull 100 Liberal seats.

[acottawa]

Hahahahahaha

Asked about low polling numbers, Trudeau says Canadians are not in 'decision mode' yet

Recent Abacus survey gave Conservatives a 20-point lead over Trudeau's Liberals

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...bers-1.7237785

[1overcosc]

CBC piece about Algeria's intimidation of Canadians.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...home-1.7235270

So now we have a new country to worry about other than Russia, India, China, and Qatar.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

20 years I'll argue the Martin minority was better but certainly better than anything in last 9 years.

I really like Paul Martin and worked on his campaign in 1990, but during his term the fiscal policy improvements were just continuations of what he started while as FM and the Civil Marraige Act, while very important, was pretty much a continuation of the SSM movement started by Chretien (which Martin actually voted against 5 years earlier).

Again, Martin wasn't a bad PM ("Best PM Canada never had"!) but I would be hard pressed to say his term was the best in the past years. Why would you say it was better?

BTW, the story of Paul should be very relevant to the current crop of PM wannabees in the LPC. Martin could have been a great PM, but he was tainted by Chretien from day 1 and was alwys trying to distance himself from the big scandals. I would argue that Martin is (was?) head and shoulders above anyone in the current crop of "JT and The Gang" and if he couldn't distance himself from the taint, none of this crew have a chance.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Not a conspiracy theory, I just doubt JT comes up with the mandates himself vs his staff.

It is impossible to talk about politics without some speculation on non-electoral power bases. Conspiracies are campaigns to achieve specific ends while remaining hidden. But there are all sorts of things from lobbying to corruption to ordinary interpersonal horse-trading that go on with less than total transparency.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by shreddog

I really like Paul Martin and worked on his campaign in 1990, but during his term the fiscal policy improvements were just continuations of what he started while as FM and the Civil Marraige Act, while very important, was pretty much a continuation of the SSM movement started by Chretien (which Martin actually voted against 5 years earlier).

Again, Martin wasn't a bad PM ("Best PM Canada never had"!) but I would be hard pressed to say his term was the best in the past years. Why would you say it was better?

BTW, the story of Paul should be very relevant to the current crop of PM wannabees in the LPC. Martin could have been a great PM, but he was tainted by Chretien from day 1 and was alwys trying to distance himself from the big scandals. I would argue that Martin is (was?) head and shoulders above anyone in the current crop of "JT and The Gang" and if he couldn't distance himself from the taint, none of this crew have a chance.

I don't think Martin was a good PM. He purged most of the competent people and surrounded himself with a lot of questionable ministers (Joe Volpe anyone). I can't think of anything memorable he did as PM other than blow a large lead in the polls.

I think he was a good Finance Minister, but the Finance Minister only has one job (write the budget once a year) which doesn't require dealing with day-to-day issues.

The Chrétien "scandals" were pretty minor. Martin overhyped them as part of the Liberal civil war

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

A new leader who is reasonably good wouldn't be able to prevent a CPC majority, but it would limit the damage. The LPC might end up with 100 seats in opposition to a 180-seat CPC majority government, as opposed to 40 seats in opposition to a 240-seat CPC majority government. And more importantly, with a new leader who is reasonably good, they'd be able to rebuild faster and stand a better shot at regaining power in 2029.

Who is that "reasonably good" leader who only wants to be Prime Minister for a few months? If JT steps down before the next election, this will just be 1993 Conservatives all over again. The top candidates run for the hills and you get the sacrificial lamb leading the party to defeat and off that leader goes into the wilderness. What difference does it make if the LPC is 100 or 40, as if 100 is even a possibility? None of the serious people wanting to be LPC leader after JT want to be the ones leading them into 2025, they want 2029 with years of leading the party, and years of PP government to campaign on.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Not a conspiracy theory, I just doubt JT comes up with the mandates himself vs his staff.

He's PM, not King. Don't forget the role of the bureaucracy - they flesh everything out where they don't originate.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

You do understand that cabinet ministers do not create their own mandates?

His mandate letter did not mention a massive expansion of international students.

https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-lett...mandate-letter

It could be PMO sent instructions separately, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this was the Minister's dumb idea. Previous news stories on access to information requests seem to suggest the bureaucracy thought it was a bad idea.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think Martin was a good PM. He purged most of the competent people and surrounded himself with a lot of questionable ministers (Joe Volpe anyone). I can't think of anything memorable he did as PM other than blow a large lead in the polls.

I think he was a good Finance Minister, but the Finance Minister only has one job (write the budget once a year) which doesn't require dealing with day-to-day issues.

The Chrétien "scandals" were pretty minor. Martin overhyped them as part of the Liberal civil war

I don't disagree with any of this neccesarily. What did Harper do to improve things from 2004-06? He cut GST and destroyed the structural surplus we were in. He reacted slowly and then politically to the financial crisis. On the other hand he got books back to near balance (balance was a accounting fiction) by slow and steady discipline rather than slash and burn keeping growth steady. He looks very good next to Trudeau though we forget how euphoric many were in 2015-2018 as science based decisions returned and we had optimistic leadership again.

Overall it is splitting hairs we were governed very well from 1993 to 2013 despite complaints on both sides.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

His mandate letter did not mention a massive expansion of international students.

https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-lett...mandate-letter

It could be PMO sent instructions separately, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this was the Minister's dumb idea. Previous news stories on access to information requests seem to suggest the bureaucracy thought it was a bad idea.

It seems clear this wasn't anyone's idea. It was inertia, rebound from Covid and going with the flow because more people=good.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It seems clear this wasn't anyone's idea. It was inertia, rebound from Covid and going with the flow because more people=good.

In October 2022, IRCC introduced a temporary public policy allowing eligible study permit holders to work off-campus more than 20 hours per week. That clearly isn't an inertia, it is a proactive decision taken by the Minister for IRCC.

[kool maudit]

I wonder if it had to do with the fashionable premise that immigration can be deflationary.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

In October 2022, IRCC introduced a temporary public policy allowing eligible study permit holders to work off-campus more than 20 hours per week. That clearly isn't an inertia, it is a proactive decision taken by the Minister for IRCC.

This was to help a labour shortage. Of course they should have anticipated. (and I think were warned several times) that if you let students work full time the next wave of students will be fake students who are here only to work but they don't seem to have a plan to bring in that many. Students until recently were evaluated on an individual basis. This doesn't absolve them of blame and actually arguably is worse than a strategic decision to bring in millions of students that went wrong.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This was to help a labour shortage. Of course they should have anticipated. (and I think were warned several times) that if you let students work full time the next wave of students will be fake students who are here only to work but they don't seem to have a plan to bring in that many. Students until recently were evaluated on an individual basis. This doesn't absolve them of blame and actually arguably is worse than a strategic decision to bring in millions of students that went wrong.

Yes, this is all true, but there is still a significant possibility this was the Minister’s stupid decision.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yes, this is all true, but there is still a significant possibility this was the Minister’s stupid decision.

Unlikely, but absent a good explanation from this government, one is left wondering. I sometimes wonder if they didn't have information that NOT jacking up the numbers would lead to even worse consequences? Again, absent clear and convincing explanations, one can only wonder.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Unlikely, but absent a good explanation from this government, one is left wondering. I sometimes wonder if they didn't have information that NOT jacking up the numbers would lead to even worse consequences? Again, absent clear and convincing explanations, one can only wonder.

There is certainly evidence that the bureaucracy raised significant concerns. Whether other bureaucrats were forecasting different problems if the policy was not changed is unclear.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politi...imit-1.6766641

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

In October 2022, IRCC introduced a temporary public policy allowing eligible study permit holders to work off-campus more than 20 hours per week. That clearly isn't an inertia, it is a proactive decision taken by the Minister for IRCC.

The limit is back down to 24 hours, iinm. How that can be enforced for gig workers, I don't know.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The limit is back down to 24 hours, iinm. How that can be enforced for gig workers, I don't know.

Instead of lowering the number of visas we should have dropped the number of hours to 0. We are now turning away real students who want to spend their money in Canada. These students are actually a bigger burden on housing than fake students as they rent entire apartments themselves but bring tangible economic benefits that outweight this for the most part.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

The limit is back down to 24 hours, iinm. How that can be enforced for gig workers, I don't know.

The big gig operators like Uber track a mountain of information on their “employees” I assume hours worked is one of them.

I guess there are people working in an informal gig economy like shovelling snow that would be harder to track, but I think that is a pretty small percentage.