Trudeaumetre - Bravo!

Quote:

The best thing that could happen is that hundreds of thousands of Canadians sign up to be promise trackers.

And the second best would be if a few dozen signed up, but worked night and day, forgoing food and sleep, to grouse incessantly and "keep them honest".

"Oh, look, it's been nearly ten days since Trudeau won, and I'm still not seeing any pot for sale at my local grocery store!!!"

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Let's face it, the smart Liberals know that a large chunk of their support was lent to the Liberals to get rid of Harper. 

That's a heck of an assumption. The NDP borrowed Liberals in 2011 and now they have returned to the Liberals, except that isn't true either. Apparently it's new voters who made the difference so it seems they were more inspired by Trudeau than by Mulcair.

It's not a big assumption. The only part of NorthReport's statement that could be reasonably argued is the "large" part, which really depends on how much counts as "large". Trudeau benefitted greatly from the ABC/change vote - at LEAST 5% of the 39.5%. Trudeau earned many votes, but he got more than he earned. If Trudeau wants to match, much less grow his vote share for 2019, he's going to have to exceed expectations, and they are high.

Unless the NDP runs Tom Mulcair and the CPC runs Doug Ford. Then I guess he would have an easy time.

I have to say I like the concept very much. In fact I think it is important enough that it would ideally be done with all governments and be the responsibility of an officer of parliament to record and maintain. This should be done for all provincial governments as well. At issue is the fact that people vote based on promises and the tracking of these in an organized and objective way is an important democratic function.

That said there must be a critical response to the promises themselves as they are made -- parties make promises that if cleverly worded they are often less than what voters understand them to be or touch critical issues but are quite lacking in ambition. This means that there are two evaluations that must be made -- the first is the quality of the promise in ambition and expression (is it what it is made out to be, is it specific, and does it represent real action on the issue?) and second, was it kept.

In the case of Trudeau we can see that a number of promises are very specific and as promises go quite high quality in that they say what people understand them to say, represent significant progress on the issue and can be objectively measured. Other promises are more vague and might be checked off as kept or not depending on a flexible interpretation -- or they lack ambition such that they are meaningless. These latter promises ought to be discounted from the start and excluded from any quantifiable list. It would be wrong to have a majority of "kept" promises be vague and unambitions with most objectively measurable promises on the unkept side -- and then say that a majority of promises have been kept.

I would prefer to see the promises ranked on such a site in terms of quality and specifics so that we can see the p[rogress on the best promises apart from the vague or incredibly unambitious. So where specific action is promised this should not be ranked as equal to a promise to "look at" or consider something.

It is important to say that the NDP promises would have fallen into exactly these two categories with a similar split between objective quality promises and more vague open to interpret or low ambition promises. As well the NDP faced a debate about promises that critics claimed the promise was less ambitious than it sounded. My comment on this issue are not partisan but based on accountibility principles.

If you want to hold a government to account you have to start by challenging low quality promises at the start. Advocates must demand specific answers and call out low quality promises at the start otherwise they will not get what they are looking for even as the governing party claims their concern was fully addressed.

I would love to see a chart of all the promises of all the parties and see an evaluation of how ambitious and specific each was. I suspect we would see that each of the parties have made a similar list of high quality promises and fleshed them out with lower value less trackable committments from an objective point of view. I would have no trouble sorting these promises for any of the parties based on this criteria without regard to whether I agreed with the specific proposal from a policy point of view.

A more subjective analysis might also rank promises in terms of importance based on how much they were promoted, how significant they were to voting decisions and expectations. This analysis would also expose some painful truths in reviewing a campaign.

For the NDP a balanced budget would be considered not just a promise but a critical one -- and I suspect that many people might take issue perhaps not with the promise but how it trumped the importance of other promises that people thought were more important. Some of the ailure to match the importance of certain promises to what people wanted to see in the campaign could explain losses for the NDP. In many cases the collection of policies were not the problem but the ranking in communications was. Now that the campaign is over, this ranking when it comes to Liberal promises (the ones that are now relevant) is important to any analysis.

Lastly, I want to say that this should not be a gotcha process and I hope it will not be. If minor promises are broken and critical ones kept then this is also important to the analysis. This is why I think it is important to rank -- before we learn which promises will be kept -- which is which. This is the only way to be fair objecitvely.

So to sum: I love that site but the ranking and consideration of the promises in terms of quality and importance should not be done later but rather now before the record really starts to become evident. To suggest that this ranking will not be central to the spin later would be a mistake.

In all seriousness, Sean, you should make these points to the people behind this site, and perhaps offer to help with implementation of your suggestions. There's a good chance they will welcome your suggestions and assistance.

I would like to add to the promise record another thing: The next step is the official promise to parliament -- this we call the Throne Speech. Marking which of these promises is mentionned in this key speech form the incoming budget is another critical step. The Throne Speech statements shuld also be tracked over time.

Another point that can be made is that it is not impossible to go back to Stephen Harper's 2006 promises and track each of those over the life of that government. It would take some considerable effort but the promises of 1993 are also possible. So we could look at the first promises of each of the previous Liberal and Conservative governments when they first came in. They each had over 8 years (equivalenet of two full terms) so there is some fairness in considering them.

I don't think SiO is suggesting that we hold Trudeau responsible for any previous government's failures.  But it might be interesting, and perhaps enlightening, to also look at their track record with regard to promises kept/promises forgotten.

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I would like to add to the promise record another thing: The next step is the official promise to parliament -- this we call the Throne Speech. Marking which of these promises is mentionned in this key speech form the incoming budget is another critical step. The Throne Speech statements shuld also be tracked over time.

Another point that can be made is that it is not impossible to go back to Stephen Harper's 2006 promises and track each of those over the life of that government. It would take some considerable effort but the promises of 1993 are also possible. So we could look at the first promises of each of the previous Liberal and Conservative governments when they first came in. They each had over 8 years (equivalenet of two full terms) so there is some fairness in considering them.

To what end? We already know there were a ton of "promises" broken. It's not like we can change our minds now and de-elect Trudeau. He has a majority which gives him 4 years to show what he is made of. Because he has a majority the other parties cannot be obstructionist. No excuses.

During his term we have his platform and the coming Throne speech to hold him to. Why would we need old history?

Really???

I thought it was obvious.

This initiative will be used politically. But it should be used as a point of democracy and accountability. To do so there is value in context. Looking at the two last governments, there is an opportunity to build valuable context to consider the current set of promises. Given the nature of some of those promises, I would certainly hope that the Trudeau government would be able to look good against the 1993 and 2005-6 promises. If there is to be a tight record kept then it is worth going back over the last two incoming governments in order to provide context. The next government after Trudeau's would then have three to compare to.

I think Pondering you are often clueless -- this initiative ought to be for the people not for the parties and the people deserve to see and be able to use this new data in a historical context. It would also be fair for the Trudeau government, as well, to have that context especially if any wiggle in any promise generates a headline. This is fair for everyone and provides the experience of history. This record may be examined against Trudeau over a number of years, it is only reasonable that this context be available. That said if you think Trudeau's record will not look favorable next to Chrétien's and Harper's I have to ask why you could consider yourself a Trudeau supporter. I am not a Liberal and actually I remain hopeful that Trudeau will keep more of his promises than these last two great disappointments. That said, I meant my suggestions here to be non-partisan and I was motivated to propose an accountability exercise to be useful. Had Mulcair won the election I would have proposed exactly the same thing.

Perhaps, Pondering, you need to give your head a shake and look at some of these threads in a less partisan way. Your engagement here is horribly tainted by the approach you take.

Anyone with half a brain can see why this initiative is sorely needed. No point trying to explain it to those who don't.

Wow Pondering you have outdone yourself with utterly clueless and pointless posts.

Love how you say I am out of touch -- let me tell you this -- if ever I think I am out of touch I will make sure I consult the opposite of people like you.

You are the one to inject partisanship into this thread. But fill your boots your reputation and the respects that exists for you could not fall any lower. So you have nothing to lose and one more opportunity to irritate.

For the non-clueless-- it is obvious that something like the Trudeaumetre will be used politically and others will definitely spin it -- my suggestion to provide context makes the process more fair and realistic.

Back to your regularly scheduled does of clueless Liberal PPP- posturing, preaching and propaganda.

@#$% it

Funny how Pondering is capable of actually discussing an issue, while some of you seem utterly incapable of resisting the temptation to discuss Pondering.

My suggestion: Deal with her points, or ignore her. Calling her names, ridiculing her? That's not adult behaviour. Besides being toxic to this discussion board.

Pondering wrote:

If the committee fails to come up with a replacement for FPTP hardly anyone will care. 

I almost corrected you on this when you stated it implicitly earlier upthread. But since you're going to continue to press this claim, let me just say that on electoral reform you are wrong.

Many people voted for Trudeau when they would (almost) never vote Liberal, because of fear of Harper and FPTP.

Many people were happy to vote for Trudeau, but aren't liberal partisans and want to be able to have a vote for the NDP or Greens or conservatives or whatever other party actually matter in later elections if they no longer support Trudeau.

Immediately after the election there were multiple viral open letters to Trudeau circulating social media, and the one consistency was he better keep his electoral reform pledge. It's the dominant issue on most boards regardless of leaning.

And just because Chretien got away with some doozies doesn't mean Trudeau will. When Chretien broke his 1993 promises the generation that gave Trudeau his majority were in diapers. Most people didn't even know what the internet was, and if you had a computer it was running Windows 3.1 (I think - whatever was before Win 95). Voters have the means to stay fully informed, now. And most importantly, Trudeau specifically ran on "doing politics differently." Many people voted for that, not Pierre, not the LPC, and not his hair.

With a majority mandate, if Trudeau fails to eliminate FPTP by 2019, he'll be reduced to a minority at best, and most likely the Liberal party won't meaningfully survive his tenure as prime minister.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I'm a big, big fan of PR, Cody, but I think you are just plain wrong on the politics of this. Pondering has it right that an electorally insgnificant number of people will care that Trudeau fails to change FPTP. If he does make any change, it will be to IRV, but I'm betting that there will be no change at all.

There were many promises and for this reason the value of each in terms of affecting voter responses would be diminished. There will be a determination if promises are being kept in general. But I tend to agree that specific promises individually may not be deal breakers for the entire population although there would be a cumulative effect.

There will be people for whom the handling of democratic change like ending FPTP would moitivate their vote, others might respond on promises for change with Aboriginal people or the environment for example. Some will focus on specific promises while others a more general impression. I think expectations are high -- perhaps higher than they have been since 1993.

The most significant of all may well come down to the tone of government -- isssues of access, approach, transparency, being "real change," will be critical. Again much of this is more impressions than specifics. But there is no question that any promises broken will result in at least some cost to the government even if for each one of them a majority may not see that as significant.

I do think that the handling of the FPTP will be significant for a small number of people -- mostly those who shifted to the Liberals with their assurance that this would be the last time. Even if this represented only three points in the polls or so -- added to a couple other issues of similar weight and you can lose a government. A three point shift already can be enough to lose a majority. So I would not diminish this. I think it is fair to say that a majority of issues themselves do not decide the fate of a government but rather it is a collection of these so it would be wrong to write of each individual issue's importance without recognizing this.

One factor is that in some cases a promise that is vague allows different interpretations in gathering support but when the proposal becomes concrete some will be unhappy. A lot of these can result in some danger to the popularity of the government.

The Liberals have a number of things in their favour -- comparisons to the previous government will likely remain favourable for the entire mandate if not longer. A number of promises are easy but are quite significant in terms of setting tone. The impression of access to a government that is listening would likely provide considerable good will when people think f the Harper government.

The Liberals have promoted a platform with more of a focus on collective well-being than the Cosnervatives and so they are less reliant on buying individual votes than were the Conservatives. There are both advantages and disadvantages with this.

Management of the economy will always be a turning point for a government -- even if much of this is actually beyond their control. The first opportunity to protect themselves may come from an examination of the country's finances. If they are in worse shape than presumed then a budget statement should come before a full budget to lay out the opening financial position of the new government. If the finances are in better shape than assumed this would not be needed.

The political position of course also depends on the other parties. If the Conservatives put up a more right of centre opposition they may reduce the pressure on the government than if they put forward soemthing different enough from Harper and more in keeping with the public mood. The NDP, for its part, will have to distinguish itself but do so carefully. It will want to remain close enough to the centre to be a credible option and left enough to show some difference. The formulation of the choice of specific policy positions will be critical and the Liberal government will of course tack a course that either makes it easier for the NDP or the Conservatives to distinguish themselves depending on Liberal directions.

Then lastly there is the impact of scandal or lack of it. If the government is clean it can withstand more policy disagreement with Canadians on individual points.

Trudeau only narrowly got this majority when the stars aligned for him. And FPTP is by far the most important of his promises to many people. Don't take my word for it, look at the comments on Trudeaumetre. There are two issues that aren't already in action (already in action: refugees by jan 1st, 50% female cabinet, ending bombing mission against isis, door to door mail, and restoring the long form census) that have more than 100 comments. Of the 5 in action I listed, the one with the most comments has just over 200. The other two are C42 (firearms bill) with just over 100 comments, and electoral reform ending FPTP with more than 350 comments. By way of comparison, all 5 marijuana promises combined are still under 100 despite recent news that THAT promise is likely to be one of the last implemented this mandate.

The NDP will be able to bludgeon Trudeau with his FPTP promise if he doesn't keep it, and it WILL stick. All the left leaning soft liberal support can go to the NDP just as easily as it went to the Liberals. We saw that in 2011. 

The Trudeaumetre comment counts are interesting, but they are unlikely to reveal the concerns of most voters, who will never visit, or even hear of this web site. Those who make these comments are a heavily self-selected sample, scientifically useless.

Bärlüer wrote:

pookie wrote:

The metre needs to be updated as JT  achieved his promise of gender parity.

Well, the Cabinet does have 31 members and there are only 15 female members... (where's the Annoying Nitpicker smiley on this thing?)

Pfft.

Quote:

Water

Minister McKenna and the new minister of fisheries and oceans —Arctic MP Hunter Tootoo —are also expected to fulfill commitments to protect freshwater and oceans, and renew commitments to protect the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River Basin, and the Lake Winnipeg Basin. In B.C., the Liberals says they wil act on the recommendations of the Cohen Commission on restoring sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River.

are the Liberals going to remove control of the Fraser and it's water shed tributaries from the NEB? if they don't do it how can they restore sockeye stocks?

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Bärlüer wrote:

pookie wrote:

The metre needs to be updated as JT  achieved his promise of gender parity.

Well, the Cabinet does have 31 members and there are only 15 female members... (where's the Annoying Nitpicker smiley on this thing?)

Are we 100% certain of Justin's gender identity?Pfft.

i don't get this as a symbol of what?

well i think the pic is terrific and it says nothing about gender identity. it's yoga anywhere anytime. and it's something i expected of him seeing as how Sophie is a certified yoga instructure.

yoga is a way of life. family and friends life usually. at least in my world.

thorin_bane wrote:

Says one of the most inflamaory posters on the board that spends as much time berrating other posters as actually discussing issues. Pot meet kettle Unionist.

My stalker! Welcome, thorin! Been missing you. Try spell-checker, if your temper tantrum allows you enough time to perfect your drive-by smears.

Oh, and thanks for your substantive and well thought out contribution to the conversation here!