Trudeau Liberals

Karl Nerenberg wrote:

Canada is, and has always been, a non-nuclear country. We had a brief flirtation with nuclear weapons in the 1960s, in the early days of the Pearson Liberal government, but determined grassroots opposition put an end to that. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, then a private citizen, famously called Pearson the "de-frocked Prince of Peace" after the latter said, in 1963, that he would allow nuclear-armed missiles on Canadian soil.

In the early 1980s, toward the end of his tenure as prime minister, the elder Trudeau went on an international campaign for peace, and in the process significantly irritated the Reagan regime in the U.S.

Between the denunciation of Pearson and the campaign for peace, Nerenberg misses Trudeau's decision to allow testing of the US cruise missiles in northern Alberta.

As well, the difference between being a nuclear-power, and a country in a military alliance with nuclear powers who would use their nukes in the event of the alliance getting into a war, is pretty much a distinction without a difference.

cco wrote:

Canada's been an active participant, not a passive ally, in the American nuclear weapons program from the early days of NATO.

And, actually, Canada's invovlement with American nukes predates NATO by a few years...

https://tinyurl.com/y9d2v4yb

In my experience, few Canadians know about this, despite that bombing being one of the major, indeed definitive, events of the last 100 years.  

Maybe yes, maybe no, but they won't vote based on the issue. They will vote based on their wallets and management ability.

no actually Canadians wil vote on how well Justin’s photo shoots go. Canada’s economy has been sliding south for 50 years now. If what you’re saying was true, our economy would be a lot stronger. 

Well, presumably, by "Canada is back", he meant Canada is once again engaged on the world stage.

Which is kind of funny, because I see now that the Liberals are having a hard time finding a suitable peacekeeping mission on which to send our troops, despite bewailing Harper's lack of support for peacekeeping all those years. Whereas, I would have assumed that getting Canada back into peacekeeping would be as simple as asking the UN where they need troops sent, and sending them there. Unless the UN is absolutely oversaturated with soldiers wanting to do peacekeeping, that shouldn't be too tall an order.

(And yes, Socratic ignorance aside, I recognize that the Liberals are probably worried that going into overly dangerous theatres will lead to politically unpalatable casualties. But then, that's kind of like saying you want to do peacekeeping, but not in the really dangerous places where peacekeeping is needed the most.)

From VOTD:

But then, that's kind of like saying you want to do peacekeeping, but not in the really dangerous places where peacekeeping is needed the most.

​Without trying to be too nit-picky, if a peace has been established, there is a peace to keep. Without an established peace agreement, there's not really much for peacekeepers to do. Just sending soldiers into a conflict doesn't necessarily do anything for anyone, and in fact may just make things worse.

It's also important that peacekeepers have some local knowledge. Again, just sending soldiers into an area when they really have no idea what's going on is dangerous, not only to the soldiers, but to the local situation.

Just going to war with someone is a lot easier. At least you know what the objectives are.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but they won't vote based on the issue. They will vote based on their wallets and management ability.

WWWTT wrote:

no actually Canadians wil vote on how well Justin’s photo shoots go. Canada’s economy has been sliding south for 50 years now. If what you’re saying was true, our economy would be a lot stronger. 

In comparison to what people believe the other two would have done. In this case the question is "would Harper or Mulcair have done better" and most Canadians would say no. Most Canadians have no problem with the infrastructure bank or the trade deals. These are things Trudeau will brag about during the election campaign. I am still hopeful about Singh but it isn't a good sign that he has stayed silent on the trade deals. Polls are still showing Trudeau with strong approval ratings.

Rev Pesky wrote:

From VOTD:

But then, that's kind of like saying you want to do peacekeeping, but not in the really dangerous places where peacekeeping is needed the most.

​Without trying to be too nit-picky, if a peace has been established, there is a peace to keep. Without an established peace agreement, there's not really much for peacekeepers to do. Just sending soldiers into a conflict doesn't necessarily do anything for anyone, and in fact may just make things worse.

It's also important that peacekeepers have some local knowledge. Again, just sending soldiers into an area when they really have no idea what's going on is dangerous, not only to the soldiers, but to the local situation.

Just going to war with someone is a lot easier. At least you know what the objectives are.

Yes, but when Harper was in power, the Liberals lambasted him for reducing Canada's peacekeeping commitments to next-to-zero(*). The implication, of course, being that there was a lot of peacekeeping that Canada could be doing in the world, and Harper was shirking our duties.

So having taken that position under Harper, the Liberals don't really have the option of now saying "Well, it's pretty complicated finding a suitable venue, we gotta research the local knowledge etc". Unless they're gonna argue that there were all these obviously suitable venues between 2006 and 2015, that suddenly disappeared when the Liberals came to power.

(*) My understanding is that Harper didn't kill peacekeeping so much as take it off the life-support that Chretien had left it on, but anyway.

voice of the damned wrote:

So having taken that position under Harper, the Liberals don't really have the option of now saying "Well, it's pretty complicated finding a suitable venue, we gotta research the local knowledge etc". Unless they're gonna argue that there were all these obviously suitable venues between 2006 and 2015, that suddenly disappeared when the Liberals came to power.

Sure they have the option and they don't even have to explain themselves to anyone because they won't lose votes over not sending peacekeepers anywhere. Calling them hypocrites over it or liars will have about as much effect in reducing their support as it has in the past. None. It could even benefit them as it's more background noise distracting from the important issues.

Russia challenges Canada's geographic sovereignity to the north, and America, Europe, and China challenge Canada's economic sovereignity to the south, east, and west. If the rest of the world had a typically Canadian live and let live attitude, we could send our military men and women home to their families. While there are still those in this world who wish to encroach on our geographical, civil, and economic space, we must have some kind of force as a deterrent. Nature abhors a vacuum, which Canada largely is.

With no signature success, Trudeau’s popularity faltered in 2017

Tom Parkin wrote:

Jean Chretien held a net positive approval rating for almost six years. Stephen Harper for just two. Now, two years and two months into his mandate, more Canadians disapprove of the job being done by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau than approve.

Why not? And with almost nothing to show after two years of government, why shouldn’t his popularity sink even lower in 2018?

[..]

After two years of Trudeau, there’s no childcare plan. No effort to control tuition fees. No pharmacare plan. Federal health care funding is falling behind inflation and population growth. Housing and rent assistance was delayed until after the next election. Action to fight addictions and mental illness is missing. Today’s problems are not being addressed.

In fact, Trudeau is weakening pensions with Bill C-27 and creating an Infrastructure Bank to privatize finance — which will add user fees, fares and tolls. How does that help?

Quote:

That would explain why the NDP dropped their share of the vote by 50% in the recent byelections, and the Liberals stole a seat from the Conservatives.

I honestly think popularity polls are an opportunity for the electorate to get stuff off their chests and grouse a little.

There's not much point complaining about the parties that aren't the government, and it might even be satisfying to imagine what if they were, except when it comes to actually voting for real, in which case it's not the end of the world if "the evil you know" is a tiny little increment more evil than you thought last time.

The negatives don't matter at all because that isn't how elections are run. Only comparative popularity matters and on that metric the Liberals and Trudeau are doing great. I think Singh is great but he is going to have an uphill battle. The ancient argument that the Liberals are liars and the NDP will do what the Liberals promise is a losing argument.

On indigenous water advisories they have been two steps forwards one step back but most Canadians will still see that as progress that would continue if the Liberals are re-elected. The Liberals have made progress on many more issues that they will brag about.

Core NDP voters may be furious about the electoral reform not happening but the answer to "Who will best promote democracy?" was:

• Trudeau 37%
• Scheer 15%
• Singh 10%
• none of the above 38%

None of the above is the big winner but Trudeau is a very close second. The Conservatives and the NDP are also rans. I think people may have been thinking more in terms of promoting democracy internationally, but still. The NDP should own this topic by a landslide. Electoral reform is not the be all and end all of promoting democracy, not by a longshot. Transparency is much more important because people can only be outraged over what they know about. We have to be able to follow the money.

This isn't an NDP thread so I will restrain myself but suggesting Trudeau is weak is doing a deservice to Singh.

Trudeau and the Liberals are going to be a strong challenge in 2019. The odds are that Trudeau will win a second majority. If Singh can make any inroads at all that will be an accomplishment. Even if he can't it doesn't mean that someone else could have. Trudeau and the Liberals are not a weak or wounded adversary. They are in their prime. They have every hallmark of being a 3 term government, two majorities one minority, and could even go farther.

Quote:

None of the above is the big winner but Trudeau is a very close second.

I wish I had the skills to chisel this onto a rock.