PDA

View Full Version : Andrew Coyne shreds Trudeau's blaming others for his actions.



soulchaser
06-29-2017, 08:11 AM
Andrew Coyne: Trudeau's petulant, tone-deaf performance a remarkable milestone

Until this week I don’t think any of us quite fathomed just how cynical Justin Trudeau could be.

Until this week I don’t think any of us quite fathomed just how cynical Justin Trudeau could be. That he had broken several important election promises was well known; that his government was every bit as controlling, and as programmed, as its predecessor was every week becoming more apparent.

But Tuesday’s petulant, tone-deaf performance was still a remarkable milestone. As an exercise in executive blame-shifting, it may be without parallel. In the course of a single press conference, the prime minister managed to blame the opposition for his own decisions: to run deficits three times as large as promised for ten times as many years; to launch the Senate on its present collision course with the Commons; and to renege altogether on electoral reform.

The deficit, first. The prime minister may have promised to run deficits of no more than $10 billion for no more than two years, and to return to a balanced budget by the fourth. He may have instead delivered deficits of nearly $30 billion, with no end in sight. He may command a majority government, in a growing economy. But that should not be taken to mean he is somehow responsible for any of what has happened on his fiscal watch. Rather, it is all the Conservatives’ doing.

“If you tally up the promises we made [in the Liberal election platform], it was about $10 billion worth of new spending,” the putative prime minister explained. But — alas! — once elected they found they had been hoodwinked. “We just went from a floor where the budget was balanced, because supposedly the Conservatives had balanced the budget, to what was the reality of our budget of being at about $18 billion in deficit the end of that first year,” he added.

This is admittedly a familiar Liberal refrain, but it doesn’t get any truer with the retelling. That the Conservatives did indeed leave them a balanced budget for 2015-16 is not disputed by any serious analyst. The Liberals were only able to drag the final number into the red by some truly heroic back-dating of their own spending: a surplus of $7.5 billion through the first 11 months of the year became a deficit of — wait for it — $0.9 billion after the twelfth.

It is true that revenues came in less in the following fiscal year than the Tories had projected. But to blame the resulting $23-billion deficit — or the $29-billion deficit in the current fiscal year, or the $27-billion deficit in the next — on this is a stretch, to say the least. Compare: Budget 2015, the Conservatives’ last budget, forecast revenues for fiscal 2017 at $302-billion. Actual figure: $292-billion, a shortfall of $10-billion. Spending, meanwhile, came in at $291-billion, almost $17-billion over the original projection. So let us be clear on what, or who, was responsible for the deficit ballooning as it has.

On the Senate, whose transformation (in its own eyes at least) from a partisan patronage house to one filled with “independent, merit-based” appointees has coincided with a marked increase in belligerence, one that on several occasions has brought it perilously close to vetoing the elected House of Commons, the prime minister again accepted no responsibility. It may have been his decision to kick all of the Liberal senators out of caucus, or to experiment with a new, allegedly non-partisan appointment process. But the fault for whatever followed lay exclusively with the Conservatives.

“The fact that we are stymied a bit by a block of partisan Conservatives who vote against the government every chance they get,” he explained, “simply means there is more work to do to create a more independent and thoughtfully reflective Senate.” You understand, when the Conservative senators vote against the government — 70.5 per cent of the time, according to tabulations by the CBC’s Eric Grenier — they are merely being partisan. But when the prime minister’s own appointees vote with the government 94.5 per cent of the time, why, that just shows how independent and thoughtfully reflective they are.

But the most scandalous part of Trudeau’s performance was his response on why he had broken his promise on electoral reform. To refresh your memory: the Liberals promised the 2015 election would be “the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.” They did not specify what system they would replace it with. Rather, they would “convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms,” including ranked ballots and proportional representation.

And, indeed, all through the months of committee hearings that followed the prime minister and his minions professed to be keeping “an open mind” about reform. So how could Trudeau be blamed if, as he now confesses, the whole process was a sham and a fraud: that he had only ever been open to ranked ballots and had no intention of accepting any other proposal? Clearly, it was their fault, like the public’s before them, for believing him. Or at any rate, it was their fault for taking a different view from his.

After all, he said, “I have been consistent and crystal clear from the beginning of my political career” regarding his preference for a ranked ballot, if you don’t count the period from a few months before he was elected to about 15 months after. “Unfortunately, it became very clear that [while] we had a preference to give people a ranked ballot … nobody else agreed.” No, indeed. Not the opposition members of the committee. Not nearly 90 per cent of the experts and others who appeared before it. Not even the Liberal members of the committee.

As Trudeau tells it, while he was fully prepared to accept his own proposal, “there was no openness to compromise in the other parties.” Pity the prime minister: everybody is out of step but him

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-trudeaus-petulant-tone-deaf-performance-a-remarkable-milestone/wcm/12ac58a7-fcad-4c26-9a99-239d62cb38a2

RangeBob
06-29-2017, 08:21 AM
Re post #1
Wow. (agreement)

soulchaser
06-29-2017, 08:21 AM
After all, he said, “I have been consistent and crystal clear from the beginning of my political career” regarding his preference for a ranked ballot, if you don’t count the period from a few months before he was elected to about 15 months after. “Unfortunately, it became very clear that [while] we had a preference to give people a ranked ballot … nobody else agreed.” No, indeed. Not the opposition members of the committee. Not nearly 90 per cent of the experts and others who appeared before it. Not even the Liberal members of the committee.

As Trudeau tells it, while he was fully prepared to accept his own proposal, “there was no openness to compromise in the other parties.”

Sweet f--king Jebus:

The committee DID compromise.

ALL committee members, INCLUDING THE LIBERAL MEMBERS supported sending the question of proportional representation vs first past the post to the people via a referendum.

YOU, Justin Trudeau, refused to compromise because you said from day one there would be no referendum and since NOBODY supported YOUR preference of ranked ballot, you took your ball and went home.

Canada_Phil
06-29-2017, 08:42 AM
Holy Cow!!!

When A Ruby Red Lefty like Coyne goes on a Trudeau tirade, that is really saying something!!

Add that to the Red Star Sock Puppet piece and this is a bit telling.

VooDoo
06-29-2017, 12:33 PM
Holy Cow!!!

When A Ruby Red Lefty like Coyne goes on a Trudeau tirade, that is really saying something!!

Add that to the Red Star Sock Puppet piece and this is a bit telling.

I can't wait for Rex Murphy to chime in on this....

sltoronto
06-29-2017, 02:15 PM
Incredible ...

A centre-commie comes at the leftie-commie with a force swing .. and not on the policies side, just purely on the personality and moral integrity ones ..

SpenceyHR
06-29-2017, 10:49 PM
Incredible ...

A centre-commie comes at the leftie-commie with a force swing .. and not on the policies side, just purely on the personality and moral integrity ones ..

If you look into the "culture war" supposedly going on, the leftists are cannibalizing each other.

RangeBob
06-30-2017, 06:34 AM
If you look into the "culture war" supposedly going on, the leftists are cannibalizing each other.

some musings...

The Right starts with the position that people with a different opinion have a right to exist. So if we see something of which we disapprove and it's not on our property, for the most part it's ok. "On our property" includes "Spending my hard earned money, and even spending my easy earned money, because my money is my property." (We draw the line at malum in se crime, although are not fond of people who disagree with "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".) To that end we would rather have less, than demand that others give us their stuff. This is not to say that we don't have lively opinionated discussions, a few that are motivated by a ridiculous but emotionally satisfying desire to win -- it's just that with a moment's reflection it's easy for us to set that aside and change the topic. I would imagine that someone on the Right created the "Ignore" button, otherwise known as "my way or the highway". The side effect of this is that Right-ists expect to get support for their ideas, and are often disappointed when they don't get massive agreement.

The Left seems to start with the position that anyone who disagrees with them needs to be shut down, and starts yelling (contrary to "live and let live" and "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".) Lately they have one volume: maximum hysterical outrage for everything big or small. There's one problem with that of course -- no one agrees with anyone else completely. "No one is pure. No one." (Babylon 5, "Infection") The first side effect being that they don't limit objections to things that are on their property, but include public spaces. The second side effect being that in addition to lively opinionated discussions, it's almost impossible to let things stand ("agree to disagree") and change the topic. I would imagine that someone on the Left created the "Banned/Pink" button. "My opinion and my feelings trump your facts, so I don't need facts." (seems a little justin-ish). The third side effect is, as you say, that leftists end up cannibalizing each other.

Of course there are no absolutes.

People on the left enjoy conservative themes and values (movie goers want the hero to rescue the girl, the child, and the dog). Although sometimes they'd rather be dead than deviate from [pick your Leftist idea of the week].

People on the right seem to be comfortable with several leftist ideologies, having become accustomed to them, even over their values. Perhaps more than they should be, but that's the beginnings of a lively discussion. Although sometimes they'd rather be dead then Red.

Swampdonkey
06-30-2017, 05:01 PM
If you look into the "culture war" supposedly going on, the leftists are cannibalizing each other.

Feminists, alternative sexualities, Muslims are coming to a head, and that's just a small area of Progress.

RangeBob
07-01-2017, 01:20 AM
This NRA Commercial Is Triggering Liberals Everywhere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWr2hx9oYcg

LIBERALS GET TRIGGERED BY NRA AD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v3R7iiLQAU

Doug_M
07-01-2017, 07:58 AM
Regardless of the fact their (Liberals) assertions about this video are ridiculous, their reaction is indeed delicious.