Canadian politics: the Justin Trudeau years

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

Quote:

Just out of curiosity, what services would those be?

Based on memory, I think she works for Health Canada. The data collected in the long form allows them to do projections for anticipated health care needs.

Well, I guess my question would be what exactly are those projections used for that other sources of data (e.g. short form census, current trends in service usage, etc.) are inadequate. (I know its a bit unfair of you to put you on the spot, since you're kind of stuck in the middle here.)

Like I said, I actually approve of bringing back the long-form census; I'd just like to know that my approval isn't misplaced.

[Corsair 115]

Well, I, for one, am disappointed to see the overrrepresentation in the new cabinet. There were 184 Liberals members elected; of that total, 27% are women. Yet 48% of the new cabinet are women. Thus, of the proportion of the population actually elected, women are greatly overrepresented in the cabinet.

When can I expect this gender imbalance in the new cabinet be fixed in order to properly represent the gender distribution of those who were actually elected by their constituents? It's 2015!

(Yes, I'm being sarcastic. But that's because I am getting increasingly tired of identity politics infesting everything. How about we let merit decide and get the most qualified persons into the important positions instead of checking off arbitrary boxes that have to be filled first.)

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

How about we let merit decide and get the most qualified persons into the important positions instead of checking off arbitrary boxes that have to be filled first.

Okay, so show us the list of elected MPs who have better qualifications for these jobs.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Mr Trudeau's nicer Canada is having a positive effect already!

Quote:

Newly named Conservative interim leader Rona Ambrose says her caucus will leave the former Harper government’s “nastiness” behind and opt for more “constructive, effective” work as the Official Opposition.

Speaking to CTV’s Question Period, Ambrose said she looks forward to establishing a more-positive tone as interim leader.

“I think you can be constructive, I think you can be strong, but you don’t have to be angry,” said Ambrose. “I do think that my colleagues have sent the message loud and clear that we want to be effective and constructive but leave the nastiness behind.”

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conse...rose-1.2648267

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Joey McGee]

Canadians like people who are nice, of course, we get it now. These people are political geniuses.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Okay, so show us the list of elected MPs who have better qualifications for these jobs.

Well, you do know Trudeau's expressed intent was for gender parity in the cabinet, right? So straight off the bat there's going to be questions over merit since Trudeau himself said there was going to be an arbitrary factor in cabinet considerations.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Well, I, for one, am disappointed to see the overrrepresentation in the new cabinet. There were 184 Liberals members elected; of that total, 27% are women. Yet 48% of the new cabinet are women. Thus, of the proportion of the population actually elected, women are greatly overrepresented in the cabinet.

Well, if it makes you feel better, 5 of the women were actually "Ministers of State", a lower ranking that actually pays them less than full ministers.

How representative of Canada! Same job, but less pay for women!

(Although that is only a temporary situation... apparently there are plans to reclassify the Ministers of State as full Ministers.)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/just...ters-1.3307122

[Fitter]

The Italians aren't happy

[Segnosaur]

Quote:

Mr Trudeau's nicer Canada is having a positive effect already!


Newly named Conservative interim leader Rona Ambrose says her caucus will leave the former Harper government’s “nastiness” behind and opt for more “constructive, effective” work as the Official Opposition.

Quote:

Canadians like people who are nice, of course, we get it now. These people are political geniuses.

Yes, that will bring the conservatives back to the glory days of Robert Stanfield, when we learned just how successful a politician can be by being 'nice'.

[Segnosaur]

Oops....

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...n-ms-treatment
When Justin Trudeau created a new science portfolio in cabinet, and appointed a former academic as the minister, observers hailed the move as a sign of renewed respect for empirical study....some critics are questioning the prime minister’s choice for the post, an MP whose history with scientists is turbulent....Kirsty Duncan contributed to the UN climate-change panel that won a Nobel peace prize. More controversially, she has also vigorously promoted an unproven medical treatment, clashed publicly with some of the world’s top virus experts, and repeatedly warned of a “darker side” to science replete with power politics and resistance to change.

Not that I think Conservatives have much to brag about (what with the appointment of a chiropractor to a science posting). And I do think that ultimately the scientific community will be better of under the Liberal administration than Conservative.

But wow... that did not take long to come up, did it.

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Oops....

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...n-ms-treatment
When Justin Trudeau created a new science portfolio in cabinet, and appointed a former academic as the minister, observers hailed the move as a sign of renewed respect for empirical study....some critics are questioning the prime minister’s choice for the post, an MP whose history with scientists is turbulent....Kirsty Duncan contributed to the UN climate-change panel that won a Nobel peace prize. More controversially, she has also vigorously promoted an unproven medical treatment, clashed publicly with some of the world’s top virus experts, and repeatedly warned of a “darker side” to science replete with power politics and resistance to change.

Not that I think Conservatives have much to brag about (what with the appointment of a chiropractor to a science posting). And I do think that ultimately the scientific community will be better of under the Liberal administration than Conservative.

But wow... that did not take long to come up, did it.

The treatment she championed was "liberation therapy" for multiple sclerosis, and she was supportive of it back in 2011. Studies have since come out showing it's ineffective and has no basis in biology. It would be interesting to know if she's been swayed by the evidence and changed her mind (the scientific approach) or continues to promote it (the woo approach.)

If the latter, she has no business representing science in the federal cabinet.

[Joey McGee]

A lot of people thought the vein hypothesis was worth fighting for studying. Back in 2011, I would have said the same thing. Saying something should be studied isn't the same thing as promoting a quack theory, this is complete ********, obviously, the National Post prints crap. Let's see her comments in 2015... good luck digging up more crap to bitch about.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

The treatment she championed was "liberation therapy" for multiple sclerosis, and she was supportive of it back in 2011. Studies have since come out showing it's ineffective and has no basis in biology. It would be interesting to know if she's been swayed by the evidence and changed her mind (the scientific approach) or continues to promote it (the woo approach.)

If the latter, she has no business representing science in the federal cabinet.

Well, according to the article:
But notes for that 2011 speech remain on Duncan’s MP web site, and a video she recorded as recently as October, 2014, voices support for the theory.
...
a major 2013 study out of the University of British Columbia, which found the vein narrowing was equally present in MS patients and healthy controls – the theory’s “death knell,” according to the journal Lancet.

So, it looks like she continued to hold on to her questionable stance on the therapy for at least a year after significant evidence came out against it.

And, she has a letter posted on her official page calling studies into the use of "liberation therapy". The letter was dated from 2010 (before the Lancet article); however, her site is still hosting it. You'd think you'd go through some sort of effort to erase that sort of material if it referred to things you no longer believe in. (Admittedly, that one could just be due to an inattentive webmaster.)

Of course, it doesn't mean that she will automatically be a bad minister (or any worse than ones that came before.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

A lot of people thought the vein hypothesis was worth fighting for studying. Saying something should be studied isn't the same thing as promoting a quack theory...

No, but if significant evidence has already come out against that theory, then even calls to continue studying it are.. questionable.

Quote:

...this is complete ********, obviously, the National Post prints crap. Let's see her comments in 2015... good luck digging up more crap to bitch about.

Did you even read the article? (I just posted a few sentences that covered the overall theme, but it did seem to address your concerns.)

Not sure about her comments about it in 2015, but as recently as 2014 (long after evidence against the theory came out) she was still talking about it.

[Joey McGee]

Oh so all of the trials and research still being done on it, one that will be published in 2017, they should all be scrapped because of something The Lancet said? The research shouldn't be supported?


She's spoken of this as recently as June 2015

Quote:

Mr. Speaker, today I present 10 petitions on chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency.

It has been five years since people began travelling overseas for this treatment for CCSVI. Canadians with multiple sclerosis are wondering when there might be an update on the government's clinical trials and MS registry. The petitioners are asking the government to proceed to phase 3 clinical trials.

It may indeed fail, but the attack of being a woomeister is crap. I have zero doubt that she will respond to the criticism. She's as MS advocate that leads a group of 1000 sufferers, She's doing her job. There is a wide latitude here. People acting like she's a *********** homeopath, that's the problem here.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

Oh so all of the trials and research still being done on it, one that will be published in 2017, they should all be scrapped because of something The Lancet said? The research shouldn't be supported?

Ok, first of all, I never actually said existing trials should be scrapped. But, if the bulk of the evidence have shown "liberation therapy" to be ineffective, it would probably be a good idea to not continue pushing for additional research, even if it makes some sense to finish off work that's already been done.

Secondly, its not just "something the lancet said"... it was a research article published in the lancet based on studies done by the University of B.C.

Thirdly, that was not the only evidence suggesting that "liberation therapy" was not valid... From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...ticle13775154/
...the McMaster study found no link between impaired blood flow or blockage in the veins.
...
Earlier this year (in 2013), researchers at the University of Buffalo announced new findings that liberation treatment does not help patients improve, and in some cases worsens their condition. That study followed another out of the University of Texas, funded in part by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, in which researchers found no evidence that CCSVI was more prevalent in people with MS than those without the disease.

So, multiple studies, all going against "liberation therapy". Yeah, you can wait for the next study in 2017, but do you really think its going to be any different than the 4 that have been mentioned?

Quote:

She's spoken of this as recently as June 2015
...
It may indeed fail, but the attack of being a woomeister is crap. I have zero doubt that she will respond to the criticism. She's as MS advocate that leads a group of 1000 sufferers, She's doing her job.

Depends on what her "job" is.

If her job is to represent the views of her constituents, she might be doing so. (After all, even those who have incorrect views sometimes deserve to have their voices heard.)

If her job is to plot a course of action based on the best evidence (even if it goes against the wishes of her constituents) then no, she isn't doing her job. Hopefully she will do better once she settles into her position.

Quote:

People acting like she's a *********** homeopath, that's the problem here.

She is pushing for research into a treatment that multiple sources of evidence have shown is invalid. Isn't that the type of thing skeptics should be wary of?

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Well, according to the article:
But notes for that 2011 speech remain on Duncan’s MP web site, and a video she recorded as recently as October, 2014, voices support for the theory.
...
a major 2013 study out of the University of British Columbia, which found the vein narrowing was equally present in MS patients and healthy controls – the theory’s “death knell,” according to the journal Lancet.

So, it looks like she continued to hold on to her questionable stance on the therapy for at least a year after significant evidence came out against it.

And, she has a letter posted on her official page calling studies into the use of "liberation therapy". The letter was dated from 2010 (before the Lancet article); however, her site is still hosting it. You'd think you'd go through some sort of effort to erase that sort of material if it referred to things you no longer believe in. (Admittedly, that one could just be due to an inattentive webmaster.)

Of course, it doesn't mean that she will automatically be a bad minister (or any worse than ones that came before.)

So far, not so good. If she's changed her mind in the last year, she certainly isn't trumpeting it on her web site.

It might be safe to assume Justin Trudeau doesn't really know how science works. If he did, I think he would have seen a need to question Kirsty Duncan about her support for this therapy before giving her a science post.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

So far, not so good. If she's changed her mind in the last year, she certainly isn't trumpeting it on her web site.

It might be safe to assume Justin Trudeau doesn't really know how science works. If he did, I think he would have seen a need to question Kirsty Duncan about her support for this therapy before giving her a science post.

Well, I can't necessarily condemn Trudeau... After all, I'm pretty familiar with science, and I had never heard of Liberation therapy before. (Its just not my field of expertise), so it would be understandable if he didn't know there was an issue there.

And of course with any cabinet, you have to pick people who are most qualified out of a pretty small pool of people that is probably going to be laden more with lawyers and business people than scientists. So picking someone with a few flaws would be better than picking someone with many flaws.

Overall I think that "science" will be better off than it had been, even if the minister is incorrect on this.

[Joey McGee]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Ok, first of all, I never actually said existing trials should be scrapped.

But you're criticizing her for pushing for the highest level of trials, so you may as well be.

Quote:

But, if the bulk of the evidence have shown "liberation therapy" to be ineffective, it would probably be a good idea to not continue pushing for additional research, even if it makes some sense to finish off work that's already been done.

Her point is simply that Canadians continue to leave the country to get the procedure done and people need and deserve the treatment to be completely investigated.

Quote:

Secondly, its not just "something the lancet said"... it was a research article published in the lancet based on studies done by the University of B.C.

So because the Lancet said it was the "death knell" now anyone who advocates for the highest level of scientific research on it is a loon?

Quote:

Thirdly, that was not the only evidence suggesting that "liberation therapy" was not valid... From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...ticle13775154/
...the McMaster study found no link between impaired blood flow or blockage in the veins.
...
Earlier this year (in 2013), researchers at the University of Buffalo announced new findings that liberation treatment does not help patients improve, and in some cases worsens their condition. That study followed another out of the University of Texas, funded in part by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, in which researchers found no evidence that CCSVI was more prevalent in people with MS than those without the disease.

There's more to the story...

Quote:

http://www.macleans.ca/authors/anne-...d-legal-drama/

The year’s serious “debunking” of CCSVI began in August, when a McMaster University study that found no evidence of CCSVI in 99 adults with MS compared with 100 healthy controls was issued with a press release declaring CCSVI had been “debunked.” (The same day research out of Italy investigating the safety and efficacy of angioplasty to treat CCSVI was published but received virtually no media mention: it found blockages in 98 per cent of 1,200 subjects.)

In October, researchers published an Italian study announced at a meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) in 2012. The study found CCSVI in only about three per cent of MS patients and in only slightly fewer healthy controls or patients with other neurological conditions. On its heels came University of British Columbia research published in The Lancet that found venous “narrowing” in 74 per cent of people with MS. But it also found similar narrowings in 66 per cent of unaffected siblings of people with MS and 70 per cent of healthy controls. So in other words, veins defined as “narrowed” are in fact the norm. The study used catheter venography, which the researchers billed as the “gold standard.” But as Zivadinov pointed out in a 2012 interview, there’s no “gold standard” yet in diagnosing CCSVI: “As a matter of fact, we are establishing standards, and catheter venography is [not a] gold standard for a number of reasons,” he said, referring to this study. As research is increasingly showing, it’s what’s within the vein intraluminally in terms of blockage, valves and blood flow that counts.

In reporting the UBC study, news editors didn’t even bother to get the Thesaurus out: “Zamboni MS vein theory debunked by study,” read one:” “Study debunks CCSVI: Narrowed neck veins found in people with and without MS” read another. Many headlines proclaimed, incorrectly, that the scanning studies discredited CCSVI treatment: “Controversial Treatment May Not Help MS Patients” and “Canadian study casts further doubt on liberation treatment for MS.” The CBC continued the thread announcing its top 6 health stories of 2013: “A series of studies in 2013 debunked Italian Paolo Zamboni’s belief that clearing blocked or narrowed neck veins could relieve symptoms of multiple sclerosis.”

But whether or not MS symptoms are relieved by CCSVI treatment has not been established beyond anecdotal reports. These reports suggest between one- and two-thirds of patients experience some benefit, which may or may not endure. Research in the U.S. (here, here and here) and Europe (here and here) conducted in 2013 concluded CCSVI treatment was safe, and resulted in physical and psychological improvements ranging from mild to significant. Zamboni has a clinical trial underway in Italy. In Canada, a four-centre treatment trial with 100 participants has commenced; results are expected in late 2015. Other research is apace.

Still, it’s not surprising the “CCSVI-has-been-debunked” mindset prevails—to the point that CCSVI is now invoked as an example of how new alternative treatments don’t pan out. In November, for example, a Globe and Mail story outlined the debate over whether children with epilepsy could benefit from using medical marijuana. Toronto bioethicist Kerry Bowman used CCSVI as a cautionary tale: “But we’ve been down this road with other things, like [liberation therapy] for multiple sclerosis,” Bowman said. “You had people swearing that this has changed their lives and then it really did not hold up to randomized clinical trials.”

I emailed Bowman to ask which randomized clinical treatment trials he was referencing, since none have been published. “I think what I likely said is that they have not confirmed benefit,” he answered. “There are reportedly clinical trials running now but no one willing to discuss.” I responded by asking if he’d been misquoted. His response: “liberation therapy didn’t hold up to clinical trials…”

So if she was out there saying "It's proven to work and the government should be legalizing and approving the procedure" Then we have a problem. What we have in real life is an advocate for MS saying that we need a definitive answer on a procedure.

Quote:

Hopefully she will do better once she settles into her position.

Hopefully you'll give her a chance to respond to the concerns before you declare a point has been scored against her?

Quote:

She is pushing for research into a treatment that multiple sources of evidence have shown is invalid. Isn't that the type of thing skeptics should be wary of?

No. Skeptics should be wary of limiting research into areas where there is legitimate debate. When it is that serious of a disease, and that many people are reporting benefits, when that many people are leaving the country to get the procedure done, nothing will do but the highest level of evidence that doesn't leave any questions. Are they asking for billions of dollars? The impossible? What people are missing is that almost all the MS societies are advocating more research into this, not just hers, she's just an advocate. You'd think she advocated for *********** bereavement therapy featuring psychic mediums.

[Stacko]

How do you celebrate unseating a Chinese-Canadian MP? By dressing up as one.

Quote:

A Liberal MP is apologizing after posting photos on Facebook of herself wearing a Halloween costume based on an Asian ethnic stereotype.

The photos show Linda Lapointe, the newly elected MP for Montreal's Rivière-des-Mille-Îles riding, wearing a stereotypical Asian hat and robe. The images disappeared from Lapointe's Facebook page on Monday afternoon, shortly after CBC News reached out to ask about them.

[Corsair 115]

Not a good start, at least in terms of optics.

Trudeau children's nannies being paid for by taxpayers. This after, as the article states:

Quote:

The disclosure comes after an election campaign where Trudeau repeatedly attacked the Conservatives' enhanced universal child care benefit, or UCCB, and income splitting for families, arguing rich families like his and former prime minister Stephen Harper's didn't need taxpayers' help.

Practice what you preach, Mr. Trudeau.

[Joey McGee]

There is nothing wrong with that. Why are people demanding that these children deserve more attention than the highest office in the land? What a bunch of douche bags

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Not a good start, at least in terms of optics.

Trudeau children's nannies being paid for by taxpayers. This after, as the article states:




Practice what you preach, Mr. Trudeau.

In that case he should have told ex-PM Harper to walk home rather than provide him with a government jet.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

In that case he should have told ex-PM Harper to walk home rather than provide him with a government jet.

I think the difference is that there are practical reasons for using a government jet... Often the PM would be using it when on official business, plus it may have been necessary for security purposes.

The question is whether there is a similar need for government-sponsored child care for his (Trudeau's) family. He himself would have government work that would prevent him from watching the children, but does his wife similarly have expectations for government activities? (i.e. are there expectations of her, jobs that she has to do, that are typically demanded of the wife of the PM.)

Still, its a pretty minor thing. But, its not the only issue with the Liberals. They've already managed to break one election promise, and the house of commons hasn't even been in session yet!

From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/libe...gees-1.3333623
The Liberal government says Canada will complete the resettlement of 25,000 Syrian refugees two months later than anticipated.

Now, I'm sure many of the liberal supporters will claim "that's not a broken promise", but it is... The Liberal platform (during the election) was that 25,000 would be brought in by the end of the year. Not by February. By the end of December. Now, the problem is not that the Liberal's plan was delayed... The problem is that they made the promise in the first place. Many people (even the NDP, and many of he aid groups) claimed that the Liberal's plans were unrealistic.

So, we're left with 2 possibilities:

- The Liberals were lying... they knew during the election that their plans were not realistic, but stuck with it in a cynical attempt to gain votes over such a hot-button issue

or:

- The Liberals were incompetent. They may have honestly thought that they could take in 25,000 refugees, even though there was substantial evidence that their plan was unworkable.

Edited to add: There may already be a second broken promise... After repeatedly criticizing the Conservatives over their habit of spending public money on advertising for conservative-backed programs, the Liberals have done the same over the refugee program...

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...XdmeTdhsB_bkhQ

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

In that case he should have told ex-PM Harper to walk home rather than provide him with a government jet.

Mr. Trudeau can easily say that he will not accept the government paying for the nannies to his children and he'll pay for the cost himself. Issue solved. It shows that he practices what he preaches. It would win points with the public. And it would take an arrow out of the opposition's quiver.

It really is that simple.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Mr. Trudeau can easily say that he will not accept the government paying for the nannies to his children and he'll pay for the cost himself. Issue solved. It shows that he practices what he preaches. It would win points with the public. And it would take an arrow out of the opposition's quiver.

It really is that simple.

Mr Harper could have said, "Thank you Mr Trudeau but I'll stay true to my principles and walk home at my expense."

But it is never really that simple.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Mr Harper could have said, "Thank you Mr Trudeau but I'll stay true to my principles and walk home at my expense."

But it is never really that simple.

No, it actually may BE that simple.

As I pointed out before... the 2 situations may not be comparable. Harper's presence in Ottawa may have been part of his role as former PM. In addition, there may have been security concerns (past PMs are typically offered RCMP security, as they would be considered potential targets). Flying the PM on a government jet was probably more secure than having him fly commercial.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...tective-detail

What hasn't been determined yet is whether the wife of PM has duties that are related to her husband's position that would make the use of government-paid nannies in Canada's interest. Although she has no official position, there may be situations (like visiting schools, meeting foreign leaders, etc.) where paying for a nanny might be justifiable. But if the majority of time is spent on personal projects, then there is no compelling reason why the government should be paying for child care.

[Fitter]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

No, it actually may BE that simple.

As I pointed out before... the 2 situations may not be comparable. Harper's presence in Ottawa may have been part of his role as former PM. In addition, there may have been security concerns (past PMs are typically offered RCMP security, as they would be considered potential targets). Flying the PM on a government jet was probably more secure than having him fly commercial.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...tective-detail

What hasn't been determined yet is whether the wife of PM has duties that are related to her husband's position that would make the use of government-paid nannies in Canada's interest. Although she has no official position, there may be situations (like visiting schools, meeting foreign leaders, etc.) where paying for a nanny might be justifiable. But if the majority of time is spent on personal projects, then there is no compelling reason why the government should be paying for child care.

No, they aren't http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pp/index-eng.htm

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Mr Harper could have said, "Thank you Mr Trudeau but I'll stay true to my principles and walk home at my expense."

But it is never really that simple.

I find it interesting how you keep focusing on Harper, a former Prime Minister, rather that Trudeau, who is the current Prime Minister. The fact remains: Trudeau is acting in a manner which is contradictory to his campaign rhetoric. He can easily deal with it. Yet you continue to want to obfuscate this simple point.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Fitter

Quote:

In addition, there may have been security concerns (past PMs are typically offered RCMP security, as they would be considered potential targets). Flying the PM on a government jet was probably more secure than having him fly commercial.

No, they aren't http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pp/index-eng.htm

Not really sure where your particular reference contradicts my claim. (And, the reference I provided showing some previous PMs receiving security details.) There's certainly nothing there to say they AREN'T offered security (and your reference does state: Protection is extended to Canadian and foreign dignitaries, persons designated by the Minister of Public Safety... So, I assume that past prime ministers would fall under the "designated" category.

.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Quote:

Mr Harper could have said, "Thank you Mr Trudeau but I'll stay true to my principles and walk home at my expense."

I find it interesting how you keep focusing on Harper, a former Prime Minister, rather that Trudeau, who is the current Prime Minister. The fact remains: Trudeau is acting in a manner which is contradictory to his campaign rhetoric. He can easily deal with it. Yet you continue to want to obfuscate this simple point.

You don't understand.... Trudeau is a Liberal. A member of the natural ruling party and one of god's chosen people. The rule is that regardless of how many campaign promises they break, or how contradictory they are, or how unworkable their promises are, or what scandals they have, they are automatically better than the conservatives by way of being Liberals.

That's the way it should always be. Don't you dare talk about integrity! Its only the conservatives that deserve to be criticized over that.

Chretien promises to scrap the GST and doesn't? Give him another Majority.
Ontario Liberals have huge scandals costing billions (and involve destroying evidence in a police investigation)? Lets vote them in again!
Justin promises to bring in 25000 refugees by year's end, even though other parties and even aid groups say its not feasible? No problem! Gotta vote for the hair!

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

You don't understand.... Trudeau is a Liberal. A member of the natural ruling party and one of god's chosen people. The rule is that regardless of how many campaign promises they break, or how contradictory they are, or how unworkable their promises are, or what scandals they have, they are automatically better than the conservatives by way of being Liberals.

I would hope that on a skeptics forum we'd at least be able to (mostly) set ideology aside. But, politics, I guess not. Oh well...

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Cretien promises to scrap the GST and doesn't? Give him another Majority.

In all honesty, that was probably a smart broken promise, given the degree to which revenue from the GST helped end the deficit.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Ontario Liberals have huge scandals costing billions (and involve destroying evidence in a police investigation)? Lets vote them in again!

To be fair, the Conservative under Hudak were a disaster during the campaign. They ran as Republicans Lite. Not interested in that. And Hudak's rhetoric was often cringe-worthy.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

I find it interesting how you keep focusing on Harper, a former Prime Minister, rather that Trudeau, who is the current Prime Minister. The fact remains: Trudeau is acting in a manner which is contradictory to his campaign rhetoric. He can easily deal with it. Yet you continue to want to obfuscate this simple point.

The PM under Harper got 6 FTEs for his residence. Trudeau is using 7 FTEs. He can reduce it by one. Mr Harper could have been true to his principles, reduced the number to zero and done his own cooking and pressed his own pants.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

You don't understand.... Trudeau is a Liberal. A member of the natural ruling party and one of god's chosen people. The rule is that regardless of how many campaign promises they break, or how contradictory they are, or how unworkable their promises are, or what scandals they have, they are automatically better than the conservatives by way of being Liberals.

That's the way it should always be. Don't you dare talk about integrity! Its only the conservatives that deserve to be criticized over that.

Chretien promises to scrap the GST and doesn't? Give him another Majority.
Ontario Liberals have huge scandals costing billions (and involve destroying evidence in a police investigation)? Lets vote them in again!
Justin promises to bring in 25000 refugees by year's end, even though other parties and even aid groups say its not feasible? No problem! Gotta vote for the hair!

Snicker.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Quote:

You don't understand.... Trudeau is a Liberal. A member of the natural ruling party and one of god's chosen people.

I would hope that on a skeptics forum we'd at least be able to (mostly) set ideology aside. But, politics, I guess not. Oh well...

Yeah would be nice.

Of course, people on the left side of the political spectrum can be just as set in their opinions. Remember, I was the one who acknowledged that there may be some justification in having government-supplied childcare for the PM's family. It was Gord_in_Toronto who, when presented with a possible case of Liberal hypocrisy, automatically jumped to attack the conservatives.

Quote:

Quote:

Cretien promises to scrap the GST and doesn't? Give him another Majority.

In all honesty, that was probably a smart broken promise, given the degree to which revenue from the GST helped end the deficit.

Yes, it was a 'smart broken promise'. As was the promise to delay the intake of Syrian Refugees.

But, in both cases, the Liberals either knew their promises were a lie, or should have. People complain about the state of politics in Canada, they complain about nastiness. But then they accept the rather obvious lies.

As for the GST helping end the deficit.... yes, the GST was a major contributing factor. And it was brought in by the Conservatives (who lost an election in part because of the GST.) But when you bring up the deficit, Liberal supporters tend to respond like a brain-damaged parrot... "Chretien eliminated the deficit". You point out that Conservative tax breaks were critical, all they seem to do is respond with "Chretien Eliminated the deficit".

Quote:

Quote:

Ontario Liberals have huge scandals costing billions (and involve destroying evidence in a police investigation)? Lets vote them in again!

To be fair, the Conservative under Hudak were a disaster during the campaign. They ran as Republicans Lite. Not interested in that. And Hudak's rhetoric was often cringe-worthy.

There were 2 problems with the provincial conservatives...Hudak was severely lacking in charisma, and the conservatives were brutally honest in the need to reduce the provincial payroll to handle the deficit. (Of course, the fact that provincial election laws let 3rd party organizations (paid for by unions, and often run by people with Liberal-affiliations) spend huge amounts on advertising may have had something to do with the conservative loss.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

The PM under Harper got 6 FTEs for his residence. Trudeau is using 7 FTEs. He can reduce it by one. Mr Harper could have been true to his principles, reduced the number to zero and done his own cooking and pressed his own pants.

First of all, keep in mind that the 'principles' that you are assigning to Harper are also supposedly the 'principles' of the Liberals (since they regularly criticized much of the spending of the Conservatives.) And if that's he case, then someone with 6 employees is doing better than someone with 7 employees in reaching those principles.

Secondly, nobody is saying any PM should have 0 staff to maintain the residence. But that doesn't mean that a PM should have more staff than necessary.

And minor point: Trudeau is not living at 24 Sussex drive. I'm not sure how much that affects the need for employees, but I suspect that where he's living is probably smaller and he can probably reduce staff even more.

[Fitter]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Not really sure where your particular reference contradicts my claim. (And, the reference I provided showing some previous PMs receiving security details.) There's certainly nothing there to say they AREN'T offered security (and your reference does state: Protection is extended to Canadian and foreign dignitaries, persons designated by the Minister of Public Safety... So, I assume that past prime ministers would fall under the "designated" category.

.

I sit corrected.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

The PM under Harper got 6 FTEs for his residence. Trudeau is using 7 FTEs. He can reduce it by one. Mr Harper could have been true to his principles, reduced the number to zero and done his own cooking and pressed his own pants.

And the obfuscation continues. I question your ability to be impartial.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Not a good start, at least in terms of optics.

Trudeau children's nannies being paid for by taxpayers. This after, as the article states:

Looks like Trudeau may have backtracked on this...

From: http://syruptrap.ca/2015/12/amid-bac...sed-by-wolves/
Facing backlash over using public funds to hire nannies, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his three young children will instead be abandoned in the wild to be raised by wolves.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Looks like Trudeau may have backtracked on this...

From: http://syruptrap.ca/2015/12/amid-bac...sed-by-wolves/
Facing backlash over using public funds to hire nannies, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his three young children will instead be abandoned in the wild to be raised by wolves.

Good for him. This will be an example for all Canadian parents. Kids these days are too coddled.

I think he will need to prioritize a program for drastically increasing the number of wolves in the wild before this catches on.