“we have overestimated the appetite for progressive social governance”
I think this line in itself is a mistake. We have a government who has treated social progressiveness as a replacement for robust governance. I think that as long as the economy is doing well, and that people are generally hopeful about their personal situations, there’s an unlimited appetite for social progressiveness. But it can’t be a shield
I’ve been saying for a while now that anyone who really cares about Trans Rights or Gaza should start caring a lot about potholes, and the sorts of politics fixing them represents. Because a lot more voters care about potholes than either of those two issues. If you have a credible plan to fix the potholes of the country, once you’re elected you’re free to pass anything you want on Trans Rights or Gaza
Smart. I’m pretty progressive, but the purity test stuff is even too much for me, and as an unemployed white male — and there are many of unemployed 20-something white males — you can’t expect them to not react viscerally to the DEI employment stuff… Also: Happy New Year, Evan.
Covid has disrupted ALL 20-somethings’ employment prospects.
Economic challenges are not just caused by the pandemic, but right now, in the immediate wake of a once-a-century global disaster, why is it so hard to understand such disruption?
Or to see that our govts helped us all a lot?
Canada is one of the few privileged nations in the entire world that had the wealth and technology to weather the Covid storm as well as possible.
Blaming DEI is absurd.
The change that is hurting esp young men (of all colours!) is that we are in the midst of a tech revolution that is devouring the old industrial jobs, and our corporations are not investing in Canadian workers or productivity for this new economy.
I don’t think Trudeau’s problems are only based on communication but it’s remain a large part. They are still incapable to manage a coherent response to conservative disinformation.
Maggie, I respectfully submit that you have the same problem as the Face Painter and his government: you blame communications when actual performance (or lack of same) on so many issues, such as housing, crime, etc., etc. are and were top of mind for so many people.
So, why are people angry? How about being unable to find housing? How about a government so eager to pour in new people that they don't take care of the people who are already here? And so on and so forth.
My point is that you can argue the virtues of the current government all you want (personally, I don't see any such virtues but that is me) but you cannot ignore the serious, deficiencies in their performance. Oh, wait, there's a word: performance. I contend that ever so much of what the LPC government has done is performative and is not substantive or, at very best, is insufficiently substantive. But, again, that is me.
So, again, please, enough with the "bad communications" schtick, instead, speak to the real failures of the current government. Heaven knows, the government doesn't address it's failures so it would be best if it's supporters did so.
I do not mean to say that Lib failures are only comms. I'm digging deeper than that facile shtick.
I mean that the pandemic required clearer explanations from political leaders.
Their failure to be frank led to unrealistic expectations.
How could such a calamity NOT do serious damage and require a long recovery?
Can we bring in some historical perspective please? Not so long ago, the 1990s Libs wrestled down a much worse debt-GDP ratio.
In the late 1970s-early 80s, we suffered double digit inflation and interest rates. Housing accessibility was brutal.
I just visited various European nations and witnessed problems and anger far worse than here.
Canada is so fortunate to be blessed with unsurpassed freedom, social mobility, economic opportunities, natural resources, standard of living, space, nature, ... i could go on with comparisons.
"pandemic required clearer explanations" I would argue that a) explanations were never provided; b) lies which have now been exposed have not received acknowledgement by our worsers; and c) there has been incredible doubling up of self-praise by those same worsers for their "sterling" (not) job.
"Their failure to be frank led to unrealistic expectations." I would argue that it was their failure to be honest.
Yes, there was and is a resulting calamity.
Yes, we had a much worse debt to GDP ratio. [Fun fact: that worse ratio was created by T1. Like father, like son.] The real issue is that the issue was not dealt with until 1984 and after when T1 was gone and then the government acknowledged the problem. T1, just like T2 refused/refuse to acknowledge the problem.
Yes, we had much higher inflation [I lived through wage and price controls - T1 campaigned AGAINST them in the election and then imposed them; they were a failure] I lived through the high interest rates, saw my mortgage hit eleven per cent - and I was one of the lucky ones; I saw many, many people lose their homes.
So, what am I comparing to? I am comparing the absolute problems that we had in the seventies and eighties due to T1 and see same road being travelled now by T2 and I remember the incredible distress in the nation that resulted in the necessary fixes to the abominable situation in which T2 has placed us.
Put differently, I am speaking from experience with this performative sort of government which applies policies which bring distress.
I appreciate your valuable perspective and wish to remain in good faith. Let's do this!
First, I cannot abide your accusation of govt "lies."
You try running a public health campaign in a crisis where some people refuse to accept basic modern science from trained professionals.
Do you really want Doug Ford explaining viral contagion?!
I think they all did their best but I do hope for better next time.
I would point out that debt growth is shared by govts of all stripes, not just Liberals.
Conservative govts have certainly added to debt, including Harper who faced another calamity -- the global financial meltdown -- and he invested in bailouts etc, just as P2 has done.
Austerity ends up costing more in the long run. Look at the UK after Thatcher, or the last 14 yrs of Conservative cuts.
Re Covid in Canada: would you have let businesses go bankrupt?
Would you have let workers lose their jobs?
Would you have let families lose their homes?
The deeper question is: how to respond to these huge challenges?
And what are the govt investments that best foster growth and productivity?
How about giving meritocracy a chance? As a society, we have devalued the qualities that lead to success. Now, everything has to be viewed through discrimininatory lens. The fact that a senior Ontario public servant could publicly admit that people aren't promoted based on their ability but based on DEI assessments should put the final nail in the coffin on any suspicion that Doug Ford's government is "conservative". It's not; it just a bunch of people who will say and do anything to stay in power. No principles whatsoever (I guess they learned their lessons from McGuinty and Wynne).
I can’t decide if I’m personally more unhappy with how bad the legislation itself is, or how much time and energy they’ve devoted to it. It’s one thing to propose bad legislation that no one wants, it’s another thing to make it one of your top priorities at a time when there’s a dozen far more pressing things. Sadly, I think it’s probably the one Trudeau policy that PP will happily keep
Evan, your penultimate paragraph includes the sentence, "A forceful articulation of liberal values - of pluralism, of tolerance, of compassion, and of inclusion - does not mean abandoning communities." I agree with that statement fully.
Now .... I propose that it is important one distinguish between "l"iberal values and "L"iberal values. In other words, the concept of "liberal values" is absolutely not limited to the LPC or the NDP. I would posit that even some members of the LPC do not demonstrate "liberal values" all the time and the NDP frequently not; for example, see the anti-Semitism demonstrated by some members of the LPC and NDP Parliamentary caucuses and asserted by many LPC / NDP supporters.
Oh, you can sometimes see antagonism to certain of the many "liberal values" in the CPC caucus and supporters but I contend that such antagonism is pretty rare and that those "liberal values" are pretty common among those on the righter side of the spectrum. You may not agree with me but that is my belief.
So, now to the punchline. Why did many of those "lost" voters migrate rightward? Why, they found those "liberal values" in a place that they had not previously looked, i.e. a more conservative (note the small "c") perspective. At the same time, those voters found that many of the leftward parties had abandoned their interests for slogans and did not even acknowledge their issues.
The economy was starting to improve, and Trudeau was talking about credibly investing in that when the other parties were talking about cuts
He also sold a strong vision of our country being in the sort of healthy, stable, place where we could afford to devote attention to non-emergency structural issues like Electoral Reform. It’s like a family being told they have no problem affording to renovate their house. Even if it’s not your top priority it’s a good feeling knowing that you’re in a place to do it
Im sort of thinking out loud here, but I’m now thinking about why the failure of a bunch of Trudeau’s nice-to-haves like Electoral Reform might have disproportionately hurt his credibility. Even if you didn’t care that much about them specifically, he sold a vision of the country being in the sort of place where we could afford to devote time and attention to them .
When they mostly failed, I think it left a strong impression that Trudeau was obviously mistaken about the state of the country. That left him extremely vulnerable to perceptions of other structural problems. After all, if things were as good as he claimed, what happened to all the aspirational stuff that he campaigned on that were dependent on the country doing well?
“we have overestimated the appetite for progressive social governance”
I think this line in itself is a mistake. We have a government who has treated social progressiveness as a replacement for robust governance. I think that as long as the economy is doing well, and that people are generally hopeful about their personal situations, there’s an unlimited appetite for social progressiveness. But it can’t be a shield
I’ve been saying for a while now that anyone who really cares about Trans Rights or Gaza should start caring a lot about potholes, and the sorts of politics fixing them represents. Because a lot more voters care about potholes than either of those two issues. If you have a credible plan to fix the potholes of the country, once you’re elected you’re free to pass anything you want on Trans Rights or Gaza
Smart. I’m pretty progressive, but the purity test stuff is even too much for me, and as an unemployed white male — and there are many of unemployed 20-something white males — you can’t expect them to not react viscerally to the DEI employment stuff… Also: Happy New Year, Evan.
DEI, c’mon!
Covid has disrupted ALL 20-somethings’ employment prospects.
Economic challenges are not just caused by the pandemic, but right now, in the immediate wake of a once-a-century global disaster, why is it so hard to understand such disruption?
Or to see that our govts helped us all a lot?
Canada is one of the few privileged nations in the entire world that had the wealth and technology to weather the Covid storm as well as possible.
Blaming DEI is absurd.
The change that is hurting esp young men (of all colours!) is that we are in the midst of a tech revolution that is devouring the old industrial jobs, and our corporations are not investing in Canadian workers or productivity for this new economy.
I see a disappointing failure of comms: they never explained the economic consequences of a pandemic.
And they failed to read the room by not acknowledging how bruised and anxious people feel.
Inflation and rising interest rates should have been expected and flagged in the context of short term pain but long term stability.
The Trudeau govt managed a soft landing out of global disaster. We have fared much better than almost all other nations. Who has done better?
The Libs should be commended.
Yet Canadians remain angry.
Our fed govt literally gave businesses and individuals money to stay afloat. If not, bankruptcies would have cost how much more?
I don’t think Trudeau’s problems are only based on communication but it’s remain a large part. They are still incapable to manage a coherent response to conservative disinformation.
Maggie, I respectfully submit that you have the same problem as the Face Painter and his government: you blame communications when actual performance (or lack of same) on so many issues, such as housing, crime, etc., etc. are and were top of mind for so many people.
So, why are people angry? How about being unable to find housing? How about a government so eager to pour in new people that they don't take care of the people who are already here? And so on and so forth.
My point is that you can argue the virtues of the current government all you want (personally, I don't see any such virtues but that is me) but you cannot ignore the serious, deficiencies in their performance. Oh, wait, there's a word: performance. I contend that ever so much of what the LPC government has done is performative and is not substantive or, at very best, is insufficiently substantive. But, again, that is me.
So, again, please, enough with the "bad communications" schtick, instead, speak to the real failures of the current government. Heaven knows, the government doesn't address it's failures so it would be best if it's supporters did so.
Face Painter, funny.
I do not mean to say that Lib failures are only comms. I'm digging deeper than that facile shtick.
I mean that the pandemic required clearer explanations from political leaders.
Their failure to be frank led to unrealistic expectations.
How could such a calamity NOT do serious damage and require a long recovery?
Can we bring in some historical perspective please? Not so long ago, the 1990s Libs wrestled down a much worse debt-GDP ratio.
In the late 1970s-early 80s, we suffered double digit inflation and interest rates. Housing accessibility was brutal.
I just visited various European nations and witnessed problems and anger far worse than here.
Canada is so fortunate to be blessed with unsurpassed freedom, social mobility, economic opportunities, natural resources, standard of living, space, nature, ... i could go on with comparisons.
So what are you comparing to?
"pandemic required clearer explanations" I would argue that a) explanations were never provided; b) lies which have now been exposed have not received acknowledgement by our worsers; and c) there has been incredible doubling up of self-praise by those same worsers for their "sterling" (not) job.
"Their failure to be frank led to unrealistic expectations." I would argue that it was their failure to be honest.
Yes, there was and is a resulting calamity.
Yes, we had a much worse debt to GDP ratio. [Fun fact: that worse ratio was created by T1. Like father, like son.] The real issue is that the issue was not dealt with until 1984 and after when T1 was gone and then the government acknowledged the problem. T1, just like T2 refused/refuse to acknowledge the problem.
Yes, we had much higher inflation [I lived through wage and price controls - T1 campaigned AGAINST them in the election and then imposed them; they were a failure] I lived through the high interest rates, saw my mortgage hit eleven per cent - and I was one of the lucky ones; I saw many, many people lose their homes.
So, what am I comparing to? I am comparing the absolute problems that we had in the seventies and eighties due to T1 and see same road being travelled now by T2 and I remember the incredible distress in the nation that resulted in the necessary fixes to the abominable situation in which T2 has placed us.
Put differently, I am speaking from experience with this performative sort of government which applies policies which bring distress.
I appreciate your valuable perspective and wish to remain in good faith. Let's do this!
First, I cannot abide your accusation of govt "lies."
You try running a public health campaign in a crisis where some people refuse to accept basic modern science from trained professionals.
Do you really want Doug Ford explaining viral contagion?!
I think they all did their best but I do hope for better next time.
I would point out that debt growth is shared by govts of all stripes, not just Liberals.
Conservative govts have certainly added to debt, including Harper who faced another calamity -- the global financial meltdown -- and he invested in bailouts etc, just as P2 has done.
Austerity ends up costing more in the long run. Look at the UK after Thatcher, or the last 14 yrs of Conservative cuts.
Re Covid in Canada: would you have let businesses go bankrupt?
Would you have let workers lose their jobs?
Would you have let families lose their homes?
The deeper question is: how to respond to these huge challenges?
And what are the govt investments that best foster growth and productivity?
How about giving meritocracy a chance? As a society, we have devalued the qualities that lead to success. Now, everything has to be viewed through discrimininatory lens. The fact that a senior Ontario public servant could publicly admit that people aren't promoted based on their ability but based on DEI assessments should put the final nail in the coffin on any suspicion that Doug Ford's government is "conservative". It's not; it just a bunch of people who will say and do anything to stay in power. No principles whatsoever (I guess they learned their lessons from McGuinty and Wynne).
Liberals turned off many young voters with their internet censorship legislation. No young people want that.
I can’t decide if I’m personally more unhappy with how bad the legislation itself is, or how much time and energy they’ve devoted to it. It’s one thing to propose bad legislation that no one wants, it’s another thing to make it one of your top priorities at a time when there’s a dozen far more pressing things. Sadly, I think it’s probably the one Trudeau policy that PP will happily keep
« internet censorhip » lol
Censorship is not a liberal value. Bill C-11, Bill C-18, and Bill C-63 are not liberal values.
Evan, your penultimate paragraph includes the sentence, "A forceful articulation of liberal values - of pluralism, of tolerance, of compassion, and of inclusion - does not mean abandoning communities." I agree with that statement fully.
Now .... I propose that it is important one distinguish between "l"iberal values and "L"iberal values. In other words, the concept of "liberal values" is absolutely not limited to the LPC or the NDP. I would posit that even some members of the LPC do not demonstrate "liberal values" all the time and the NDP frequently not; for example, see the anti-Semitism demonstrated by some members of the LPC and NDP Parliamentary caucuses and asserted by many LPC / NDP supporters.
Oh, you can sometimes see antagonism to certain of the many "liberal values" in the CPC caucus and supporters but I contend that such antagonism is pretty rare and that those "liberal values" are pretty common among those on the righter side of the spectrum. You may not agree with me but that is my belief.
So, now to the punchline. Why did many of those "lost" voters migrate rightward? Why, they found those "liberal values" in a place that they had not previously looked, i.e. a more conservative (note the small "c") perspective. At the same time, those voters found that many of the leftward parties had abandoned their interests for slogans and did not even acknowledge their issues.
Would love to know your list of the reasons why young men voted for the Libs in 2015.
What was the appeal for them?
The economy was starting to improve, and Trudeau was talking about credibly investing in that when the other parties were talking about cuts
He also sold a strong vision of our country being in the sort of healthy, stable, place where we could afford to devote attention to non-emergency structural issues like Electoral Reform. It’s like a family being told they have no problem affording to renovate their house. Even if it’s not your top priority it’s a good feeling knowing that you’re in a place to do it
Im sort of thinking out loud here, but I’m now thinking about why the failure of a bunch of Trudeau’s nice-to-haves like Electoral Reform might have disproportionately hurt his credibility. Even if you didn’t care that much about them specifically, he sold a vision of the country being in the sort of place where we could afford to devote time and attention to them .
When they mostly failed, I think it left a strong impression that Trudeau was obviously mistaken about the state of the country. That left him extremely vulnerable to perceptions of other structural problems. After all, if things were as good as he claimed, what happened to all the aspirational stuff that he campaigned on that were dependent on the country doing well?