PMJT: The First 100 Days

[PuckChaser]

So people are upset that appointments were made for people who's jobs were expiring in the month following the election (year away stuff notwithstanding)? What's he supposed to do, wipe his hands and say "someone's problem, not mine"? His job was to ensure the functioning of the government whether he won or not. It's completely unfair to make those people wait due to the election, and would smack of even more partisanship than alleged.

 

[Remius]

Such contempt is beyond the pale - and, I suspect, the primary reason for the ABC vote.

We now return to the previously scheduled virulent and vituperative bashing of the Prime Minister.

Agreed.  But if he played within the rules then really, there's not much more to this.  Besides, I'm sure the current one can do his own stacking and removing.

Ultimately, I suspect that Stephen Harper will be remembered for his hyper partisan tactics than for anything else.

 

[jmt18325]

So people are upset that appointments were made for people who's jobs were expiring in the month following the election (year away stuff notwithstanding)?

I think renewing contracts up at the end of the year of even 6 months after the election is reasonable.  I think renewing contracts two and a half years before is not.

 

[CombatDoc]

Ultimately, I suspect that Stephen Harper will be remembered for his hyper partisan tactics than for anything else.

I suspect that Prime Minister Harper will be best remembered for his sound fiscal policies, that maintained Canadian financial stability during a global financial crisis.

 

[Altair]

Hey look, a prime minister of Canada has sat down and talked to the premiers of Canada. 

It's been what, 6 years since that last happened?

 

[jmt18325]

Hey look, a prime minister of Canada has sat down and talked to the premiers of Canada.

It's been what, 6 years since that last happened?

And though this falls outside of the 100 day mark, they will do so again in 90 days, on the issues of MMIW and the economy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Hey look, a prime minister of Canada has sat down and talked to the premiers of Canada.

It's been what, 6 years since that last happened?

And this, according to David Akin, Sun News, is why it happened:

    "Nothing actually got done Monday night when all but one of the country's premiers had their first meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

    No one got a cheque for a new program. No one signed any new accord. Instead, they all engaged in a public ritual in front of the national media that provided the symbolic visual evidence of the political values
    the Trudeau Liberals are keen to project.

    It was a remarkable few hours of political theatre."

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's campaign, very commendably, offered some policy choices but, in the main, they campaigned on hope and change. This was political theatre, no question about that, but it is "theatre" that send a message that Canadians said they wanted.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Maybe another "event"?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/24/turkish-f-16-shoots-down-russian-fighter-jet-near-syria-border/

Sorry for the poor formatting: I'm on my mobile device.

In short: a Russian SU-24 has been shot down in Syria (that it crashed in Syria is not in dispute)
Whether it was in Turkish or Syrian airspace is being disputed, and whether a Turk F-16 brought it down, or ground fire.

Either way, not good...

 

[Edward Campbell]

"Cynic's guide" or not, this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post might give us some indicatins of the shape of the new, Liberal, government's first Speech from the Throne:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/ten-pipers-trudeau-will-need-to-pay-a-cynics-guide-to-the-sunshine-way

As a list, I think:

#1 might be a very, very mixed blessing for the CF ... it might mean more, better ships, but the price - discussed elsewhere - in terms of "lost" capabilities might be high.

#2 ... I expect to see global climate change as a, maybe [size=14pt]the, "top of mind" issue in the first 100 days. It not just because there is a big, international conference in Paris, either. I suspect the "doing something" about global climate change is an issue in which Prime Minister designate Trudeau really believes. I also expect that the new Finance Minister (see below) will be getting an earful about the costs to the Canadian economy ~ direct costs and "opportunity costs" ~ of any and all actions we might take on global climate change. I don't believe that Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives doubted that climate changes is real; I think they just backed away from taking action because of the obvious cost:impact ratios of anything except fully coordinated global actions involving the USA, China and India, too.
[/size]
#3 is, in my mind, just too, too obvious, and it ties in with ...

#4 which is an absolute must for the Liberals.

#5 I think the author is mixing too many things together. I think the Liberals will pander to the low-mid level civil service but I also think that the days when Mandarin = Liberal (think e.g. Lester Pearson, Mitchell Sharp, Marcel Massé, and, and, and ...) are gone. I think the Mandarins, themselves came to appreciate, under both Mulroney and Harper, that Conservative ≠ Barbarian lunatic fringe, plus, I believe many senior civil servants were and remain doubtful about Liberal "values" and ethics after Jean Chrétien. That e.g. David Dodge and Kevin Lynch, arguably the best and brightest of their generation, were so (apparently) close to the Conservatives, on policy matters, influenced the current senior civil servants (DMs, ADMs, etc) in Ottawa. But, I expect (favourable to the rank and filer) changes in "labour relations" and I expect Ottawa's (Liberal) Mayor Jim Watson to be happy ... after tugging his forelock with his hand out.

#6 could be a double edged sword.

#7 is something I expect to happen, sooner rather than later. It need not be a public policy disaster.

#8 means, I think, good news for the CBC.

#9 is a bottomless pit into which Prime Minister designate Trudeau will wade at his peril. The First Nations have agendas and almost none of them are good for the other 99% of us. First Nations need and deserve our help and support, after they get decent leadership of their own, on their own ... today they are a political, policy and economic quagmire.

#10 is also something about which a few simple, not too costly steps can be taken can be taken, soon ... in the first budget, but about which political insiders and officials will (continue to) have looooooong debates.

If you want to understand why climate change is the "top of mind" issue for the Liberals, just look at this chart from The Economist:

Source: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21678952-peoples-views-climate-change-go-hand-hand-their-politics-groupthink?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/groupthink

It's an American chart but I'm pretty sure it reflects Australia (Labour ≈ Democrat; Liberal ≈ Republican), Britain (Labour ≈ Democrat; Conservative ≈ Republican) and Canada (Liberal ≈ Democrat; Conservative ≈ Republican), too.

 

[Altair]

Seems like the liberals are doing OK in selling their plans to the public

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/majority-support-refugees-plan-oppose-pulling-fighter-jets-nanos-survey-1.2678063

A new poll taken in the past week suggests about two-thirds of Canadians support the Trudeau government’s campaign promise to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada, but a majority are opposed to pulling fighter jets from the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

The Nanos Research survey, conducted for CTV News and The Globe and Mail, found 65 per cent of Canadians support or somewhat support “bringing 25,000 refugees from Syria into Canada as promised by the Trudeau Liberals during the election.”

Just over a third (34%) are opposed or somewhat opposed.

The poll also found 59 per cent support or somewhat support “the deployment of Canadians fighter jets to support the international mission,” a position at odds with the government’s promise to ground Canada’s CF-18 bombers.

However, more Canadians appear to now side with the Liberals’ on the fighter jets than when the same question was asked in October 2014. At the time, 65 per cent had supported or somewhat supported the bombing mission.

What has increased, if only slightly, is support for deploying ground troops to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Nearly half (47%) now support deploying Canadian ground troops, compared to 42 per cent in October 2014.

The poll also found less agreement with “providing only humanitarian support and offering no military involvement.” That option is now supported or somewhat supported by 47 per cent of those surveyed, compared to 59 per cent in October 2014.

Although the Trudeau government plans to pull fighter jets, it has committed to increasing the number of non-combat training troops. The poll suggests that is a popular position: 81 per cent support or somewhat support “training local troops in the region.” Only 16 per cent are opposed or somewhat opposed.

 

[PuckChaser]

Doing OK is a coin flip chance of having the public support your decisions? He's 1/2 in that article. His brain trust is going to end up on the wrong side of the ground troops issue. 47% is fairly significant support for a mission that isn't even taking place, and can't count on "support the troops" polling numbers.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Justin Trudeau tells BBC in London he left Canadian detractors 'in the dust'

Prime Minister says political opponents were 'bewildered' by his rise to power

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has used an interview with an influential BBC current affairs show in London to issue his most pungent retort yet to his Canadian detractors.

Trudeau, 43, endured more than two years of Conservative party attack ads declaring him "just not ready" before sweeping prime minister Stephen Harper from power in last month's federal election.

Asked by BBC television's NewsNight program about his famous family name, Trudeau didn't deny that having had his father Pierre Trudeau lead the country for almost 16 years opened some doors.

"I think the way I was raised was that I have to work two or three times as hard as anyone else to walk through that door now that it's open," he said.

Trudeau then delivered a sharp retort that could be seen as a direct shot at Harper and other Conservative partisans.

"There's an awful lot of people who sort of shrugged and said he has nothing but a name to go on and found themselves slightly bewildered as I left them in the dust," said the prime minister.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Altair]

Doing OK is a coin flip chance of having the public support your decisions? He's 1/2 in that article. His brain trust is going to end up on the wrong side of the ground troops issue. 47% is fairly significant support for a mission that isn't even taking place, and can't count on "support the troops" polling numbers.

The putting in ground troops is a double edged sword. People would support ground troops, but that number would plummet the second troops start making the trip down the highway of heroes.

81 percent support the training mission and I imagine he's going to be playing that one up a lot when he increases it.

 

[PuckChaser]

The putting in ground troops is a double edged sword. People would support ground troops, but that number would plummet the second troops start making the trip down the highway of heroes.

81 percent support the training mission and I imagine he's going to be playing that one up a lot when he increases it.

I don't think it would drop that dramatically, except in Quebec where they have polled off the board from the rest of Canada consistently. 81% support the training mission and we've already lost a SF Op to it. We polled 60%ish in Afghanistan throughout most of the combat mission, because it was the right place for us to be to combat terrorism. I see Daesh in the same light.

Concur on the training mission piece. Its an easy win for him, and still looks to the allies like we're contributing. The real question is what he does when France comes knocking and asks for a Battle Group to support their ground offensive. That answer is going to significantly affect him both domestically and globally, either extremely negative or extremely positive.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I don't think it would drop that dramatically, except in Quebec where they have polled off the board from the rest of Canada consistently. 81% support the training mission and we've already lost a SF Op to it. We polled 60%ish in Afghanistan throughout most of the combat mission, because it was the right place for us to be to combat terrorism. I see Daesh in the same light.

Concur on the training mission piece. Its an easy win for him, and still looks to the allies average citizen/public like we're contributing. The real question is what he does when France comes knocking and asks for a Battle Group to support their ground offensive. That answer is going to significantly affect him both domestically and globally, either extremely negative or extremely positive.

;D

 

[PuckChaser]

Good catch, thanks!

 

[quadrapiper]

Concur on the training mission piece. Its an easy win for him, and still looks to the allies like we're contributing.

Sufficiently vague to cover all sorts of high-value low-number contributions, sounds harmless enough for the Folks Back Home, and doesn't have the same potential for dire, tragic mistakes as a multination bombing campaign?

The real question is what he does when France comes knocking and asks for a Battle Group to support their ground offensive. That answer is going to significantly affect him both domestically and globally, either extremely negative or extremely positive.

Assuming the French do decide to get properly stuck in, would they need Battle Group-shaped assistance to (assuming Daesh will face them in the field) eliminate Daesh as a fighting force?

 

[PuckChaser]

Daesh won't give up the ground easily, they're significantly better funded than the Taliban and they stuck around for a year. To do it right, we need overwhelming ground forces to secure the borders as well as the ground, to choke out the insurgency that they will inevitably fall back to. We can't half ass it like Afghanistan, at least we won't have a second war taking resources like Iraq did to Afghanistan.

 

[Kirkhill]

Daesh won't give up the ground easily, they're significantly better funded than the Taliban and they stuck around for a year. To do it right, we need overwhelming ground forces to secure the borders as well as the ground, to choke out the insurgency that they will inevitably fall back to. We can't half ass it like Afghanistan, at least we won't have a second war taking resources like Iraq did to Afghanistan.

I'm not sure about how the tribalism was managed in Afghanistan but I got the sense that a very modern, western, ecumenical view was taken and the westerners tried to create a modern Afghan where there was no such thing. There was a collection of Uzbek, Hazzaras, Pashtuns, Baluchis, Turkmen and Uighurs all cohabiting within the borders of Afghanistan but all living independent lives.

If you want to "win" in the Middle East then support the local tribes.  Don't hold out the borders of Iraq and Syria and the Levant as sacrosanct.  Try to stabilize individual valleys by supporting one tribe against all comers. 

At least three-quarters of the Iraqi people are members of one of the country's 150 tribes. Iraq's society is very feudalistic, with most of the population identifying him/herself with one tribe. Tribes have become an increasingly important part of Iraqi society. Even those Iraqi citizens without a tribal background often turn to neighborhood shaykhs for representation or assistance with the government.The tribe is an extremely important factor in Iraq, even in a republic. The vast majority of Iraqi people identify themselves as members of one of the country's 150 tribes. Even those Iraqi citizens without a tribal background often turn to a neighborhood sheikh for representation or assistance with the government.

Most contemporary tribal groupings in Iraq still revolve around their old cores and occupy the same regions. Certain surnames reveal the area or tribe from which a person's family originated: for example, al-Najafi, al-Samawi, al-Mashhadi, al-Zubaydi, and al-Asadi. The importance of tribe, clan, and village affiliations has increased in Iraq despite urbanization and other changes, largely because of war, economic sanctions, and Saddam Hussein's manipulation of tribal identity and tribal values.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/tribes.htm

And I wouldn't be overly bothered about applying western mores until you get the situation stabilized.  You can talk at leisure once the shooting is done.

You won't need to stabilize non-existent borders if you can secure the tribal areas with the assistance of the tribes.

(And then if that works we can try it in BC).  NB - Humour Attempt.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I don't think it would drop that dramatically, except in Quebec where they have polled off the board from the rest of Canada consistently.

I've generally seen the same numerical trend from QC, but this intrigued me:

Democracies have been forced into a "state of war" against terrorism, Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard said after meeting with French Prime Minister Manuel Valls in Paris on Saturday.

As world leaders gathered in Paris on the eve of the international conference on climate change, security often trumped the environment as the dominant theme in policy discussions.

Couillard emerged from his meeting with Valls speaking of "a state of war" that was different from wars of the past, which had two well-defined camps.

"These are the shadow forces, the forces that unfortunately, sometimes, have grown up among us. And that's what makes them even more dramatic," he told reporters.

Couillard praised the "vigour and strength of the intervention of the French Republic in this fight," while emphasizing the need to open the door to immigrants.

"I think we must all be allies, and also, on the other hand, maintain our welcome, which is also part of our values of solidarity these people want to destroy," he said.

Valls, for his part, said international co-operation was needed to combat the threat of the Islamic State ....

Jumping on the bandwagon?  It would be hard for this guy to object to any increase of Canadian presence now that he's shown 1)  how bad ISIS is, and 2)  how "vigourous and strong" France's fight is.