[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Once again, the point isn't to approve of the Conservative plan. No doubt they were "foot dragging".

The point is that the very thing hand-waved away by Trudeau - that his plan was unworkable - just happened to be true (and Trudeau knew or ought to have known that).

That's not a nit-pick, that's of the essence. He said 25K by Jan 1 for $100 mil. The reason he said it was to indicate he would move swiftly and decisively, and that concerns to the contrary were non-existent. However, no part of that was possible. The concerns to the contrary were well-founded.

I deal in project management. In my experience, what happened here is within the acceptable margin for variance and I'd like to think I'd apply a similar approach to Conservative promises.

F. ex. the Conservatives promised to add 665 new members to Canada's Special Forces by 2020. If that number was reached by 2021, or if it ended up being 600, I would not consider their promise a lie.

I guess it's a matter of preference in communication style, and an illustration of the dangers for politicians to speak in concretes. Personally, I prefer commitments to specific and sometimes ambitious goals, and missing that goal by margins rather than safe generalities and deliberate low-balling, leaving no proper measurement of accountability. Thus I avoid calling missing targets in the first category lying, and I certainly don't consider it an indication of "rot".

[Malthus]

But it is going to work.  We are going to bring in 25k.  All the winging about the last of them arriving by March is petty at best.

Well, I'd withhold that judgment until March if I were you! 

After all, these are the same people who said January 1.

Point once again is that I approve of taking more and I approve of doing it right - all I'm talking about is the use of the promise as an election tactic.

[crazy canuck]

Justin Trudeau's delay in resettling 25,000 Syrian refugees may be a smart political move
'We want these families arriving to be welcomed, not feared,' prime minister says
By Chris Hall, CBC News Posted: Nov 25, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 25, 2015 5:00 AM ET

Justin Trudeau broke a campaign promise on Tuesday. And it might be the smartest decision his fledgling government makes in the next four years.

Sorry. I mean there are perfectly good and justifiable reasons to break a campaign promise. Hell actually keeping a campaign promise is sometimes treated like the ultimate badge of honor. But the reporting here is just hilarious. 'Trudeau broke a campaign promise, all hail Trudeau and his wisdom and brilliance!'

I mean geez. Reality changing a campaign promise is not a brilliant move unlikely to be surpassed over the next four years...or at least I hope not for Canada's sake.

I think you are missing some context.  The main concern about Trudeau is that he was an untested lad who could not be trusted to make wise judgments.  It was certainly a concern we discussed in this thread during the election.  How would he react if he had to go off script was the re-occurring question.  On this issue he could have stayed on script.  He could have ensured his election promise was kept by moving in 25k by Jan 1 no matter what.

But he and his cabinet decided to do otherwise.  They decided to change the initial plan to ensure all was in order.  They are still going to accomplish this three years earlier and with 15k more refugees then the Conservatives.  The fact that it is going to take 60 days longer then initially promised is the very definition of a first world problem - ie one that is of no or little substance.

[Jacob]

Point once again is that I approve of taking more and I approve of doing it right - all I'm talking about is the use of the promise as an election tactic.

Fair enough.

That said, in the annals of dubious Canadian election tactics, I rate "promising something that you know you'll deliver late" (if we accept your analysis) fairly low on the list.

[crazy canuck]

But it is going to work.  We are going to bring in 25k.  All the winging about the last of them arriving by March is petty at best.

Well, I'd withhold that judgment until March if I were you! 

After all, these are the same people who said January 1.

Point once again is that I approve of taking more and I approve of doing it right - all I'm talking about is the use of the promise as an election tactic.

Sure and if it takes until April rather than March I will still say that accusing them of lying was entirely inappropriate. 

[Malthus]

Once again, the point isn't to approve of the Conservative plan. No doubt they were "foot dragging".

The point is that the very thing hand-waved away by Trudeau - that his plan was unworkable - just happened to be true (and Trudeau knew or ought to have known that).

That's not a nit-pick, that's of the essence. He said 25K by Jan 1 for $100 mil. The reason he said it was to indicate he would move swiftly and decisively, and that concerns to the contrary were non-existent. However, no part of that was possible. The concerns to the contrary were well-founded.

I deal in project management. In my experience, what happened here is within the acceptable margin for variance and I'd like to think I'd apply a similar approach to Conservative promises.

F. ex. the Conservatives promised to add 665 new members to Canada's Special Forces by 2020. If that number was reached by 2021, or if it ended up being 600, I would not consider their promise a lie.

I guess it's a matter of preference in communication style, and an illustration of the dangers for politicians to speak in concretes. Personally, I prefer commitments to specific and sometimes ambitious goals, and missing that goal by margins rather than safe generalities and deliberate low-balling, leaving no proper measurement of accountability. Thus I avoid calling missing targets in the first category lying, and I certainly don't consider it an indication of "rot".

It's the inability of some Liberal supporters to call a spade a spade right now that's problematic.

I'd have had no problems with the Liberal promise if it was made in the caveated terms you suggest. It wasn't.

How can promising to do something in less than 3 months and actually taking six be "within variance"? That's more than twice as long! (assuming, purely for the sake of argument, that it happens in that time).

[Barrister]

Point once again is that I approve of taking more and I approve of doing it right - all I'm talking about is the use of the promise as an election tactic.

Fair enough.

That said, in the annals of dubious Canadian election tactics, I rate "promising something that you know you'll deliver late" (if we accept your analysis) fairly low on the list.

They aren't just delivering late though.

The cost is almost triple what was suggested.

They had promised to bring in 25,000 refugees sponsored by the government.  Now, almost 10,000 of those are being sponsored by private individuals.  So the government is trying to take credit for what private individuals and charities have accomplished.

[crazy canuck]

Once again, the point isn't to approve of the Conservative plan. No doubt they were "foot dragging".

The point is that the very thing hand-waved away by Trudeau - that his plan was unworkable - just happened to be true (and Trudeau knew or ought to have known that).

That's not a nit-pick, that's of the essence. He said 25K by Jan 1 for $100 mil. The reason he said it was to indicate he would move swiftly and decisively, and that concerns to the contrary were non-existent. However, no part of that was possible. The concerns to the contrary were well-founded.

I deal in project management. In my experience, what happened here is within the acceptable margin for variance and I'd like to think I'd apply a similar approach to Conservative promises.

F. ex. the Conservatives promised to add 665 new members to Canada's Special Forces by 2020. If that number was reached by 2021, or if it ended up being 600, I would not consider their promise a lie.

I guess it's a matter of preference in communication style, and an illustration of the dangers for politicians to speak in concretes. Personally, I prefer commitments to specific and sometimes ambitious goals, and missing that goal by margins rather than safe generalities and deliberate low-balling, leaving no proper measurement of accountability. Thus I avoid calling missing targets in the first category lying, and I certainly don't consider it an indication of "rot".

It's the inability of some Liberal supporters to call a spade a spade right now that's problematic.

I'd have had no problems with the Liberal promise if it was made in the caveated terms you suggest. It wasn't.

How can promising to do something in less than 3 months and actually taking six be "within variance"? That's more than twice as long! (assuming, purely for the sake of argument, that it happens in that time).

Sure but call it a spade and not a "God Damn Shovel".  You accused them of lying.  That was an over reaction.

[Malthus]

Point once again is that I approve of taking more and I approve of doing it right - all I'm talking about is the use of the promise as an election tactic.

Fair enough.

That said, in the annals of dubious Canadian election tactics, I rate "promising something that you know you'll deliver late" (if we accept your analysis) fairly low on the list.

... and I would agree. As I said above (more than once), I don't think this is really a big deal. It's the sort of stuff politicians in elections do all the time. It was CC who claimed that accusing them of lying made it a "big deal". I disagreed.

What makes it funny, is that news article claiming breaking that promise was some sort of stroke of Liberal genius. 

[crazy canuck]

Point once again is that I approve of taking more and I approve of doing it right - all I'm talking about is the use of the promise as an election tactic.

Fair enough.

That said, in the annals of dubious Canadian election tactics, I rate "promising something that you know you'll deliver late" (if we accept your analysis) fairly low on the list.

They aren't just delivering late though.

The cost is almost triple what was suggested.

They had promised to bring in 25,000 refugees sponsored by the government.  Now, almost 10,000 of those are being sponsored by private individuals.  So the government is trying to take credit for what private individuals and charities have accomplished.

I am beginning to think that you and Malthus have never tried to estimate a job before....

Especially in circumstances where not all the information is available to make the estimate.

[crazy canuck]

Point once again is that I approve of taking more and I approve of doing it right - all I'm talking about is the use of the promise as an election tactic.

Fair enough.

That said, in the annals of dubious Canadian election tactics, I rate "promising something that you know you'll deliver late" (if we accept your analysis) fairly low on the list.

... and I would agree. As I said above (more than once), I don't think this is really a big deal. It's the sort of stuff politicians in elections do all the time. It was CC who claimed that accusing them of lying made it a "big deal". I disagreed.

What makes it funny, is that news article claiming breaking that promise was some sort of stroke of Liberal genius. 

You don't think that accusing someone of lying is a big deal 

[Barrister]

Once again, the point isn't to approve of the Conservative plan. No doubt they were "foot dragging".

The point is that the very thing hand-waved away by Trudeau - that his plan was unworkable - just happened to be true (and Trudeau knew or ought to have known that).

That's not a nit-pick, that's of the essence. He said 25K by Jan 1 for $100 mil. The reason he said it was to indicate he would move swiftly and decisively, and that concerns to the contrary were non-existent. However, no part of that was possible. The concerns to the contrary were well-founded.

I deal in project management. In my experience, what happened here is within the acceptable margin for variance and I'd like to think I'd apply a similar approach to Conservative promises.

F. ex. the Conservatives promised to add 665 new members to Canada's Special Forces by 2020. If that number was reached by 2021, or if it ended up being 600, I would not consider their promise a lie.

I guess it's a matter of preference in communication style, and an illustration of the dangers for politicians to speak in concretes. Personally, I prefer commitments to specific and sometimes ambitious goals, and missing that goal by margins rather than safe generalities and deliberate low-balling, leaving no proper measurement of accountability. Thus I avoid calling missing targets in the first category lying, and I certainly don't consider it an indication of "rot".

That's project management, where you're both working for the same company.  And game design is frequently known for dropping features and/or taking more time than estimated.

What if instead you hired a contractor who promised he could complete a job in two months.  Instead after awarding the contract he comes back and says it is going to take four months, and cost three times as much money.  I suspect you'd be furious.

Neither is a perfect analogy, but the contractor fits about as well as your project management one.

[Malthus]

Point once again is that I approve of taking more and I approve of doing it right - all I'm talking about is the use of the promise as an election tactic.

Fair enough.

That said, in the annals of dubious Canadian election tactics, I rate "promising something that you know you'll deliver late" (if we accept your analysis) fairly low on the list.

They aren't just delivering late though.

The cost is almost triple what was suggested.

They had promised to bring in 25,000 refugees sponsored by the government.  Now, almost 10,000 of those are being sponsored by private individuals.  So the government is trying to take credit for what private individuals and charities have accomplished.

I am beginning to think that you and Malthus have never tried to estimate a job before....

Especially in circumstances where not all the information is available to make the estimate.

On the contrary, I do it all the time. Clients are not happy if it actually takes more that twice as long, and costs triple, of what you estimate. 

[Malthus]

Point once again is that I approve of taking more and I approve of doing it right - all I'm talking about is the use of the promise as an election tactic.

Fair enough.

That said, in the annals of dubious Canadian election tactics, I rate "promising something that you know you'll deliver late" (if we accept your analysis) fairly low on the list.

... and I would agree. As I said above (more than once), I don't think this is really a big deal. It's the sort of stuff politicians in elections do all the time. It was CC who claimed that accusing them of lying made it a "big deal". I disagreed.

What makes it funny, is that news article claiming breaking that promise was some sort of stroke of Liberal genius. 

You don't think that accusing someone of lying is a big deal 

Politicians have occasionally been known to lie in campaigns before. 

[crazy canuck]

Politicians have occasionally been known to lie in campaigns before. 

Sure but you are the one making the accusation in this case.