There is nothing “sudden” about continuing on a nine year old project.
All of this is “Blah blah blah.” You are telling me what government and prime ministers are SAYING, not what they’re doing. Here is a full description of the position of the last four governments on the F-35:
Chretien: We’re going to buy F-35s (but they didn’t)
Martin: We’re going to buy F-35s (but they didn’t)
Harper: We’re going to buy F-35s (but they didn’t)
Trudeau: We’re not going to buy F-35s (and they haven’t)
In terms of actual practice, the position of the Canadian government for eighteen years, two parties, and three Prime Ministers was consistently towards “buying F-35 if it’s ever ready.” Now the government says they won’t buy them. But in practice what we have is no F-35s, which is what we had before. Was the Harper government slimy about the budget facts? Well of course they were. But there’s no “Fisaco.” A fiasco is when you actually screw something up.
The potential for fiasco still exists; Canada faces a LOT of defense procurement issues in the next mandate or two - not just new fighters but an essentially new navy - and the apparatus of DND remains the same and it’s phenomenally intransigent and difficult to fix.
As long as you define “blah blah blah” to be “two Auditor General’s reports and an independent Parliamentary Budget Office report that all blasted Harper’s dishonesty and ineptitude”. There’s a reason that the program has been widely described as a “scandal” and a “fiasco” for the last three and a half years. It’s not Harper’s fault that the F-35 ran into technical problems and huge cost overruns, but the incompetent decision-making, lack of accountability, dishonesty, and the veil of secrecy under which the whole thing was conducted certainly was, and it characterized his whole style of governance.
My Facebook page is full of this crap! Taking advantage of a legislated job allowance is not the same as a non-means tested government benefit program. You can take advantage of the former while being against the latter. ARRRGHHHH!!!
If you can pull a Trudeau quote that has him railing against using tax dollars for child care in any context other than arguing against the non-means tested UCCB then I will grant that it is hypocrisy. Without that quote the only way you can get to hypocrisy is if you completely strawman Trudeau’s arguments.
I think the idea is that he doesn’t want families like mine to get a child care benefit, but he’s okay with his family, which makes a lot more than mine, getting even more.
It’s not a matter of huge national consequence but there’s an elitist tone-deafness to it that’s offputting. It’s bizarre to me that he wouldn’t just foot the damn bill, God knows he’s rich enough.
Is it bad optics? I guess it is for people who are either politically motivated to look for the worst or are not able to understand nuance. Hypocrisy? I’ll buy it as soon as someone explains why there is no different between a government program distributing monies to the Canadian public and a job benefit that, because he is a government employee, is paid out of tax dollars.
An analogy would be if a person was a teacher in Ontario and was against the government providing income assistance for people to pay for prescription drugs. They would not be a hypocrite by using their government paid for prescription drug plan that was provided in their employment compensation package.
The fund that Trudeau is using to pay for employees whom have child care responsibilities, amongst other duties, is more like the drug plan offered as part of a compensation package than it is like a government handout available to the rich. It is available to the PM because of his role as PM.
I bet if you asked him Trudeau (along with every other PM in history) would also say that rich Canadians don’t need help paying for maid service but people wouldn’t call him a hypocrite for using the household allowance for that. Might as well pillory him even if he does pay for child care out of pocket as that would be taxpayer funds as well.
Well, I’m not politically motivated as I kinda like the Liberal plans, so I must be one of those unable to understand nuance … but I can easily see how making a big deal about how a rich guy like him would refuse to accept the childcare support even though he was entitled to it (I believe his plan was to give the money he got to charity) prior to the election morphs into not one, but two, publicly paid nannies for his family after the election, creates bad optics.
Given his politically savvy, I’m sorta surprised he didn’t see this coming - after all, previous PMs had had troubles justifying publicly-paid nannies.
My guess is that this won’t have legs, because we are still in the ‘honeymoon’ period. If the public was pissed with the Libs, it would be a bigger deal - remember the expense-account orange juice?
The issue isn’t the existence of perks - everyone accepts politicians should have expense accounts for business trips, that the PM needs personal servants, etc. - but the perception that they are being ‘milked’ excessively, that jars against the previous high-minded rejection of such benefits when offered to the general public. Yes, they are different, in different categories - but that makes the problem worse and not better. Unlike teachers, PMs have the power to influence what the ‘perks’ or ‘benefits’ are - so awarding himself more, while taking away one from some class of the public at large, is irksome.
No doubt it can all be justified (PMs need to concentrate on PMing, First Ladies have duties, etc.), but it is tone-deaf.
Well… yeah, of course. Political optics isn’t about nuance, it’s about appearance. We’ve been ripping Stephen Harper about matters of optics for nine years and before that ripped Paul Martin and before that Jean Chretien and on and on. Welcome to the job.
Which “optics” was Harper ripped on for? Personally, I disliked his plainly described policies. His bending over backwards to avoid bad optics was more laughable. Like letting 22 Sussex continue to degrade into a shit hole because he didn’t want to be seen getting a million+ dollar renovation.
This is actually an excellent point. Maybe Trudeau should give up his PM salary, too, fly commercial to all international summits and pay the airfare himself, and pay rent on Rideau Cottage. I’m surprised Conservatives aren’t clamouring for that, too!
I completely fail to see any connection between the child care benefit payment and an official PM household allowance. It’s not like he’s taking advantage of a benefit that he opposed – he’s explicitly said that he’s giving his to charity. Complaining about his nannies is partisan pettiness, nothing more. Previous PMs had all the same perks but in recent times they haven’t had very young children, so this is something new, and the Conservative spinmeisters seem to have lost no time in making the most of it.
So, how do you feel about the promise to reduce green house gasses without any substantive plan?
How do you feel about the inability to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year.
The Liberals won’t or can’t deliver on anything promised in the election: oh yea, they’ll make high earning people stuff their tax exemption elsewhere.
Thinking Canadians see it for what it is, he’s shifted funds provided for the PMs staffing needs from gardeners to homecare, no increase in costs. He has three small children and came into office just in time to have to tour a lot of capitals for important events. That he values his time with his family and children enough to want them with him, is part and parcel of having a young PM.
That he cancelled a childcare benefit for the wealthy has, clearly and of course, less than nothing, to do with it. Butthurt conservatives just need something to make much of.
I say, let them have their miffs without bothering to even rebut. In my heart I truly believe they know it’s just manufactured outrage, but whatever. Let them have at it, if it gives them relief from The Horror!
No. Please bring in refugees; I welcome them with open arms. But the plan is broken and now looks very similar to what the Conservative plan was.
The Liberals will talk about climate change all they want, but nothing will change regarding Canada’s output. We rely on fossil fuels and all the other talk is just posturing. So, grab some more tax from us and believe you’re helping the the fucking planet. Right.
… but I can easily see how making a big deal about how a rich guy like him would refuse to accept the childcare support even though he was entitled to it (I believe his plan was to give the money he got to charity) prior to the election morphs into not one, but two, publicly paid nannies for his family after the election, creates bad optics.