Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The last 6 months or so of 2024 really provided us with some absolute gems. Nice to see a couple of poster, even if they haven’t apologized, come back down to earth and join everyone in witnessing the observable reality around us.

Still, so many with such confidence once, yet now quiet as a mouse. What a shame.

The sad thing is, if it wasn't for the tariff stuff, some posters (and one in particular) would look at all these insane policies and still think they were enlightened for voting for PP because they've voted for all of the other parties in the past.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Torture

You don't see a difference between "rein in wasteful and ineffective spending" and "we can move even faster than DOGE"?

I don't at this point because we don't have quantified metrics from either camp as to how much smaller the public service should be. From that article

However, Carney has vowed to balance the operating budget in three years, likely meaning significant cuts to the public service over that time period.

When the Ottawa Citizen reached out to Liberal campaign to ask for more details on how such cuts could take shape, they pointed to Carney’s “economic pillars” that outline a plan to slow the growth of government spending, cap the size of the public service, and use technology such as AI to reduce inefficiencies.

We don't know if Carney plan would be more aggressive, less aggressive or equal to Pierre's plan.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I don't at this point because we don't have quantified metrics from either camp as to how much smaller the public service should be. From that article

We don't know if Carney plan would be more aggressive, less aggressive or equal to Pierre's plan.

So if cuts are inevitable, who do you trust making those decisions more?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So if cuts are inevitable, who do you trust making those decisions more?

Frankly, I don't trust either of them and I don't necessarily believe that either will be able to significantly improve the government in terms of finances or service delivery via cuts. I would love it if Carney could deliver on his promised income tax cuts by reducing government size and spending but realistically we will not see any tax cuts as a result.

[woob]

I think we know his answer to that, Fuzz.

I'm fine with both saying they want to cut public service/funding but the core reasoning behind it matters. If the goal is deregulation and doing away with key agencies, as is occuring in the US, then I do not support that.

[PepsiFree]

It’s just impossible to tell whether the party that sees the ability to be more aggressive than their destructive American counterpart due to less legal restrictions as a selling point is going to be more aggressive than the party that talks about “slowing growth” and putting “caps” on things.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s just impossible to tell whether the party that sees the ability to be more aggressive than their destructive American counterpart due to less legal restrictions as a selling point is going to be more aggressive than the party that talks about “slowing growth” and putting “caps” on things.

The saddest lies are the ones we tell ourselves.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'd be interested in knowing how Carney's policies differ with respect to this article because one of his policies is to spend less. He says the government is spending too much and talks about how there is 9% spending growth YOY and 4o% headcount growth over the last decade. He wants to "rein in wasteful and ineffective government spending" and "now is the time for a more efficient and effective government." This all sounds like code for reducing the public service and cutting jobs. Is this of concern or is only concerning if Pierre starts cutting jobs within the government?

I believe part of the problem is the massively expanded use of contractors and consultants amounting to spending in the order of $ 20. billion every year for work that could have been done internally. I think this sort of thing could be corrected fairly quickly.

I agree both Liberals and Conservatives recognize that a certain amount of trimming in government should take place. But saying this in a reasonable and constructive manner does not give the circle jerkers here the chance to make PP look like Trump.

[Johnny Makarov]

With the NDP about to lose party status can Nenshi finally go and change the god damn name?

He can even call it the Alberta Republican Party and it will be a better name than the NDP! He might even get a few deplorable votes out of it.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe part of the problem is the massively expanded use of contractors and consultants amounting to spending in the order of $ 20. billion every year for work that could have been done internally. I think this sort of thing could be corrected fairly quickly.

I agree both Liberals and Conservatives recognize that a certain amount of trimming in government should take place. But saying this in a reasonable and constructive manner does not give the circle jerkers here the chance to make PP look like Trump.

hahaha. sounds like you are going to be living under a Liberal government for the rest of your life! must suck.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

But saying this in a reasonable and constructive manner does not give the circle jerkers here the chance to make PP look like Trump.

Conservative Party official: "We're going to slash and burn the Canadian civil service even faster and with less oversight than what DOGE is doing in the US!"

flamesfever: "How dare all those circle jerking woke lieberals compare PP to Trump!"

[PepsiFree]

But if you ignore the fact that a Conservative is the one that made the comparison you can’t call people circle jerkers and then you’ll have nowhere to use that unearned sense of intellectual superiority.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Conservative Party official: "We're going to slash and burn the Canadian civil service even faster and with less oversight than what DOGE is doing in the US!"

flamesfever: "How dare all those circle jerking woke lieberals compare PP to Trump!"

Nice try but Ian Brodie is not a Conservative Party official and it doesn't appear that he has anything to do with the PP campaign. It is an opinion from a random conservative political analyst.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Speaking of the CBC they've been all over the story about Liberal campaign staffers distributing fake buttons at a CPC event. Leftist propaganda indeed.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/car...gned-1.7509662


It was a stupid thing to do and they should have been more than "reassigned". We don't need that style of politics in Canada, from either side.

So everyone is saying it was a stupid/bad thing to do. But no one talks about the fact the buttons seemed to resonate with the attendees.

Let's say the reverse happened and CPC agents put out buttons at a Liberal conference that said "Communism Now" or "Jail All Anti-Vaxxers". Do you think attendees would grab and wear them?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe part of the problem is the massively expanded use of contractors and consultants amounting to spending in the order of $ 20. billion every year for work that could have been done internally. I think this sort of thing could be corrected fairly quickly.

Agreed. Those absolutely should be internal/union jobs. However, there's a pretty big chasm between that and "let's indiscriminately slash and burn."

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

So everyone is saying it was a stupid/bad thing to do. But no one talks about the fact the buttons seemed to resonate with the attendees.

Let's say the reverse happened and CPC agents put out buttons at a Liberal conference that said "Communism Now" or "Jail All Anti-Vaxxers". Do you think attendees would grab and wear them?

I don't think we need to do a whataboutism here. Just leave it with "it was an objectively stupid thing to do, and Carney condemned it as he should have."

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Nice try but Ian Brodie is not a Conservative Party official and it doesn't appear that he has anything to do with the PP campaign. It is an opinion from a random conservative political analyst.

Nice try but he’s not a random conservative political analyst, he’s a former Conservative Party official who served under Harper as executive director and chief of staff and worked with PP, and worked with the CPC as recently as 2022.

I mean, if we use the same standard you and the like apply to Carney, he’s as much of an insider as you can get!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Nice try but Ian Brodie is not a Conservative Party official and it doesn't appear that he has anything to do with the PP campaign. It is an opinion from a random conservative political analyst.

Random as in Harper's Chief of Staff. If you think he's no longer involved in the party I have some real estate to sell.

Trump never heard of Project 25 either.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://ottawacitizen.com/public-ser...uts-ian-brodie


I guess if you like what Trump is doing but want it to happen faster with less oversight, vote Conservative? And yes, these leopards will absolutely eat your face, so don't go thinking whatever you are getting from the government is safe.

Cutting public service which has ballooned up significantly under Trudeau is absolutely not a bad thing and absolutely should be targeted...if done responsibility and not as a complete grift.

I find it odd to focus on Brodie's speech who is not currently expected to play a role in government, instead of the Conservative version of the plan while Carney is also running on efficiencies and which are both included in the same article.

Poilievre’s Conservatives have said they will reduce the size of the public service through attrition, which would shed 17,000 jobs a year. The size of the public service has swelled to 367,772 workers in 2024 from 257,034 in 2015.

When reached for comment, Sam Lilley, a spokesperson for Poilievre’s campaign, said that not backfilling “lower priority vacant positions while ensuring priority positions and key areas are filled” is one of the “available strategies” a Conservative government could use.

“Not only that, but the Liberals massively expanded the use of external contractors and consultants, spending $20 billion every year for work that could be done internally,” Lilley said in an emailed statement.

“We will rein in the waste and ensure Canadian taxpayers receive value from their public service.”

Poilievre’s opponent, Liberal Leader Mark Carney has said he intends to cap the public service. He has said his reductions would come through efficiencies and artificial intelligence, using similar language to U.K. Prime Minister Kier Starmer, who is looking to reduce the British public service by thousands.

When the Ottawa Citizen reached out to Liberal campaign to ask for more details on how such cuts could take shape, they pointed to Carney’s “economic pillars” that outline a plan to slow the growth of government spending, cap the size of the public service, and use technology such as AI to reduce inefficiencies.

But again, viewing issues objectively versus from a purely partisan sycophant viewpoint tends to pick those things out. Both Liberals and Conservatives are targeting public service jobs.

Surprised you didn't get alarmed about Carney's AI comments.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't think we need to do a whataboutism here. Just leave it with "it was an objectively stupid thing to do, and Carney condemned it as he should have."

It's not "whataboutism" to note that attendees wore those buttons happily.