Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Often consultants are just civil servants who have ‘retired’ but carry on with their jobs in a contract role. It’s a way for the government to ensure the work continues to get done without taking on the benefits and pension costs of a new hire.

The classic 'Oh crap, we didn't hire this person's replacement despite knowing they were retiring until it was too late, and it turns out we don't actually understand what they did so we need to hire them back in a consulting role to actually train them.'

[Izzle]

Carney's statement regarding the passing of Pope Francis

https://bsky.app/profile/mark-carney.../3lnd7ejmixc2w

[MrButtons]

Can someone explain to me why it isn't mandated to have each party release a platform? Like a week before the debate or something at the same time so people can be informed. It seems bonkers to me that CPC might not put one out before voting is over. Even just a small one

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The value proposition isn't zero but it might be pretty low.


https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/E...5_e_44492.html

Pretty low for MicKinsey? Perhaps, but if you take a look through government contracts:
https://search.open.canada.ca/contracts/


You quickly see we contract out all sorts of stuff that it doesn't make sense for government to do. So it's far more nuanced than an article explaining how one firm has a bunch of dubious contracts.


I get it's an easy sales pitch for the simple minded, but can we at least agree that a large portion of government contracting is probably necessary and good? And blanket statements about huge cuts to government contracting are either deceitful or naive?

[CliffFletcher]

Releasing a platform with a costed budget is a long-standing convention in Canadian politics. But there’s no rule that they have to do it, and some parties in recent federal and provincial elections have stopped releasing them (or released vague ones instead) on the reasoning that their downside is worse than the upside. It’s up to voters to hold parties accountable if costed platforms are important to them.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Pretty low for MicKinsey? Perhaps, but if you take a look through government contracts:
https://search.open.canada.ca/contracts/


You quickly see we contract out all sorts of stuff that it doesn't make sense for government to do. So it's far more nuanced than an article explaining how one firm has a bunch of dubious contracts.


I get it's an easy sales pitch for the simple minded, but can we at least agree that a large portion of government contracting is probably necessary and good? And blanket statements about huge cuts to government contracting are either deceitful or naive?

No, definitely can't agree to that. There is certainly a need for consultants in some cases but I do believe that consulting and procurement in general at the government is a highly inefficienct and infective system. I want to see future governments tackle the issue and reduce wasteful spending. Carney has promised to try to make changes in procurement which is a good start.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by MrButtons

Can someone explain to me why it isn't mandated to have each party release a platform? Like a week before the debate or something at the same time so people can be informed. It seems bonkers to me that CPC might not put one out before voting is over. Even just a small one

Voters would have to hold them to account for not doing it. That seems unlikely today, as the CPC-costed platform isn't going to be that much different from the Liberals'. But they can run around and say how terrible the Liberal one is without having to answer for their own. It's just how politics goes these days, and it's just a soundbite campaign.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

No, definitely can't agree to that. There is certainly a need for consultants in some cases but I do believe that consulting and procurement in general at the government is a highly inefficienct and infective system. I want to see future governments tackle the issue and reduce wasteful spending. Carney has promised to try to make changes in procurement which is a good start.

So you say "some cases" vs my "large portion". Without further info, we are both just guessing here. Anyone have a good source on how to get to the bottom of that? Maybe we could hire a consultant to find out...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Has anyone here actually worked with these types of consultants? If you have, you'd know how embarrassing it is that the government is spending this much money on them.

They're glorified project managers, but instead of being at the company and understanding the industries or processes, they only have a very high level understanding. All they do is create tracking sheets and dashboards with zero actual value addition on what needs to get done for a successful project, but higher levels see the pretty dashboards and go "oooh!".

This should be the easiest spending cut in the history of spending cuts. It's gotten so dumb that our previous idiot Prime Minister literally hired consultants to provide advice about saving money on consultants.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...mg-consulting/

So you are supporting bringing these project management services in house so they have a better connection to the project at hand?

I agree that there is potential for a lot of waste here. But what specific services and programs are being affected by these cuts? This information isn’t being presented. That is not acceptable.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by simmer2

PP pledging to cut 10B in consultants...down to pre-Liberal levels. Seems like a common sense thing to me. But I'm sure my Liberal friends on here will find many ways to justify wasteful spending as a good thing.

There would... have to be... 10B in consultants to cut... before you can cut 10B in consultants.

And automatically labelling all consultants as "wasteful" seems a little silly, no? You don't think it makes sense to consult with experts in their field when implementing legislation and public services? You think simply cutting these jobs means someone won't have to fill the void?

And re Trump. I don't like him. Hard to believe he's the best candidate Republicans have. But also watch what he does versus listen to what he says. He says lots of things. I'll eat crow if he 'invades Canada', but I don't buy it. He's a bully who says things to try and get his way.

Sounds like the kind of guy who's been pushing the "#### Trudeau" and "Axe the Tax" agenda for the past three+ years ad nauseum.... hmm.... almost as if... fascist elements aligned with the IDU... exchange propaganda and misinformation strategies and have abandoned democratic means because they do not believe in their own corporate-driven platforms as something ordinary people can get behind with the support of honest data analysis.

Anyways, feel free to set good examples for your kids and call me pathetic and gutless. Tell your kids about how you felt better calling a random person a name because they happened to not agree with your stance.

It is certainly pathetic to be manufacturing a strawman argument about namecalling, when no one has done so.

It is certainly gutless to antagonise someone who does not happen to agree with your stance before they've even responded to you.

But whatever floats your boat.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Pretty low for MicKinsey? Perhaps, but if you take a look through government contracts:
https://search.open.canada.ca/contracts/


You quickly see we contract out all sorts of stuff that it doesn't make sense for government to do. So it's far more nuanced than an article explaining how one firm has a bunch of dubious contracts.


I get it's an easy sales pitch for the simple minded, but can we at least agree that a large portion of government contracting is probably necessary and good? And blanket statements about huge cuts to government contracting are either deceitful or naive?

That may be true if you had a government you could trust.

Also, I think it's probably something you could gauge, to a degree, if it's being overdone.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

Someone talk me out of making a massive financial mistake. It seems very obvious to me that the Liberals will win comfortably. Right now they are about -283 (bet 3 to win 1) on the online gambling sites. I have quite a bit of money on them to win the most seats already, but I'm wondering why the odds aren't bet 10 to win 1? Does anyone see this being even close to being close in terms of seats won?

By betting or by who you vote for?

[Huntingwhale]

Going to cast my advance ballot in a few hours. I'm pretty sure I know who I am voting for, but I am more than happy for any Consevative to change my mind. I've said it a million times here and will say it again; I was more than happy to plug my nose and vote PP and see what kind of change they could bring. Instead, it has been one thing after another that pushes a mostly C like me away. Like, I'm practically begging the Cons to give me a good reason to vote for them and it's been nothing but lackluster plans and amateur hour.

I am not fan of the Libs and JT definitely needed to go, but at this point unless you have a political identity of voting Cons you entire life, it's been a failure to sway C guys like me to that side. Carney at least has the experience, know-how and intelligence to seeminy guide us through these times. I'll be happy to crap all over him if he fails. The Cons have done...nothing overall to convince me other than name-calling and preview of what a mini US-style Cons government would bring. Already have enough crap of that with the UPC here in Alberta, so the federal Libs will balance that out.

Happy to be swayed in the next few hours, but as I type this still no Cons costed platform? God damn amateur hour over there.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Going to cast my advance ballot in a few hours. I'm pretty sure I know who I am voting for, but I am more than happy for any Consevative to change my mind. I've said it a million times here and will say it again; I was more than happy to plug my nose and vote PP and see what kind of change they could bring. Instead, it has been one thing after another that pushes a mostly C like me away. Like, I'm practically begging the Cons to give me a good reason to vote for them and it's been nothing but lackluster plans and amateur hour.

I am not fan of the Libs and JT definitely needed to go, but at this point unless you have a political identity of voting Cons you entire life, it's been a failure to sway C guys like me to that side. Carney at least has the experience, know-how and intelligence to seeminy guide us through these times. I'll be happy to crap all over him if he fails. The Cons have done...nothing overall to convince me other than name-calling and preview of what a mini US-style Cons government would bring. Already have enough crap of that with the UPC here in Alberta, so the federal Libs will balance that out.

Happy to be swayed in the next few hours, but as I type this still no Cons costed platform? God damn amateur hour over there.

You don't think supporting antivax freedumb truckers is disqualifying? You don't think PP not getting his security clearance is disqualifying? You don't think that the Parrot mirrors every Trump slogan is disqualifying? mind boggling.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Firebot

We are a week away from the elections and Conservatives don't have a costed platform.

It's amateur hour over there.

Fully intentional, of course. Many voters prefer less information, sound bites, etc. He wouldn't want Carney to pick apart his costed platform while he picks apart Carney's.

Similar to how he won't get the security clearance re: foreign interference. He'd rather appear ignorant to his base, who doesn't call him out on it.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Fully intentional, of course. Many voters prefer less information, sound bites, etc. He wouldn't want Carney to pick apart his costed platform while he picks apart Carney's.

Similar to how he won't get the security clearance re: foreign interference. He'd rather appear ignorant to his base, who doesn't call him out on it.

That is disqualifying also. He's prob going to release the platform at midnight on Voting day.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

That may be true if you had a government you could trust.

.

hahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahhahahahaha


enough Grandad

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

hahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahhahahahaha


enough Grandad

Ok son, glad I made your day.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Seeing the 10B in consultants being cut is such a Trump move, it's a made-up number and people are eating it up.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Ok son, glad I made your day.

You RW guys are pretty damn entertaining though. You need to post more!