[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

She acted like a shrill idiot, claimed that all cultures are equally valid and at one point argued that there is no qualitative difference between Islamic culture and American culture because there are idiots in America that Maher ridicules...

Oh no! She did not agree that American and Polish cultures are objectively and inherently superior to other cultures! 

No wonder you didn't like her.

As flawed as occidental culture may appear, I'd take that any day of the week over salafism.

[viper37]

However, that's how partisan rot starts in any party: the ends justify the means, so lying becomes merely a tactic, and eventually positively admirable when in a good cause.

what is dumbfounding is how you have to explain that over&over&over again to Liberal partisans.  This party has not changed since at least the time of the first Trudeau.

[Malthus]

Politicians have occasionally been known to lie in campaigns before. 

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

Uh, yes?

Point is that it isn't as horribly shocking that politicians may lie in election campaigns as you appear to think. 

[crazy canuck]

Politicians have occasionally been known to lie in campaigns before. 

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

Uh, yes?

Point is that it isn't as horribly shocking that politicians may lie in election campaigns as you appear to think.

But it is horribly shocking that someone would accuse a politician of lying about something on these facts.  BB's criticism is more defensible.

[Malthus]

Politicians have occasionally been known to lie in campaigns before. 

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

Uh, yes?

Point is that it isn't as horribly shocking that politicians may lie in election campaigns as you appear to think.

But it is horribly shocking that someone would accuse a politician of lying about something on these facts.  BB's criticism is more defensible.

BB's criticism wasn't really any different - in fact upthread he used the same term I did: willful blindness.

If you want to believe willful blindness isn't really "lying", and so accusing someone of doing it isn't "shocking", go right ahead!   

Fact remains it's objectively an accurate description of what the Libs did. They knew facts enough to have put any reasonable person 'on inquiry' as to whether their promise was possible, and all your wriggling, re-defining, and expressions of pious shock and horror at how dare anyone accuse a politician of lying during an election won't change that. 

[viper37]

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".

If your game is delayed by one year and sells for 10% less than was predicted, does your editor give you a bonus for achieving your objectives within a reasonable margin of error?

[viper37]

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.

Then, we complain that politicians are lying. 
The truth is, some people just want to be lied to.  They value a good lie over an honest truth.

[viper37]

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.

I do it all the time.  I'm not happy when I missed something, it means less profit for me.  I actually have to bear the burden of the costs, unlike politicians.

[Jacob]

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).

When I benchmark it against the timescales and numbers of the other estimates - 10,000 in three years or 10,000 in three months - I don't think a delta of three months is particularly egregious. I mean, it's not ideal, but I've certainly estimated complex undertakings at three months in the past and delivered in six and not been in trouble for it.

Bottom line for me is that the current implementation still outperforms the other two by the metric I personally think matters. 10,000 in three months, and another 15,000 in the next three is better than 10,000 in three years by far, and still better than 10,000 in three months and none afterwards (though it's unclear to me what the NDP would have done after reaching the target).

So yeah, it's within variance for me because it delivers the best results of the possibilities that were on the table, and because the election issue on Syrian refugees IMO was not one of which party was the better at the logistics, but one of intent, spending, and prioritization; and in those areas as well as the most significant metrics the Liberals delivered what I was after. Given that, it doesn't make sense from my PoV to quibble about the details.

If it turns out that it'll be the end of 2016 before the number reaches 25,000 then I'll consider it a failure.

That's just my perspective, of course. If you look at it in a different light, that's your prerogative

[Jacob]

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.

Sure, if that's your preferred way of looking at things - and looking at government - it's a good fit. I generally look at government in the first light, not as a contractor, and I think I'm fairly consistent at that. Obviously there's room for disagreement there.

[Malthus]

Bottom line for me is that the current implementation still outperforms the other two by the metric I personally think matters. 10,000 in three months, and another 15,000 in the next three is better than 10,000 in three years by far, and still better than 10,000 in three months and none afterwards (though it's unclear to me what the NDP would have done after reaching the target).

So yeah, it's within variance for me because it delivers the best results of the possibilities that were on the table, and because the election issue on Syrian refugees IMO was not one of which party was the better at the logistics, but one of intent, spending, and prioritization; and in those areas as well as the most significant metrics the Liberals delivered what I was after. Given that, it doesn't make sense from my PoV to quibble about the details.

Yes, but we both agree that the Cons weren't willing to put in an acceptable effort.

It isn't like the two were analogous to two contractors competing for the terms of a job. The Cons wanted to do a smaller job.

I suspect you and I both agree that bringing in more refugees is objectively "better", and that the Cons weren't willing to do enough to respond to this situation. As I've said  (several times now), I approve of bringing in more, and I approve of them doing it "right". That simply isn't the issue. The issue is one of their election strategy.

Given that this is the objective (more is better), delay on this scale is bad: look at in in refugees-per-month. More to the point, as an election strategy, performing at half the speed you claimed in your promise is "bad". You and I both know it is better than the Cons promised, but for this question, that isn't the point - and to claim it is gets close to 'ends justifying means' territory.

In short, it is perfectly possible to approve of the Libs bringing in more, while disapproving of them lying about it in their election campaign, simultaneously. The one simply does not negate the other.

If it turns out that it'll be the end of 2016 before the number reaches 25,000 then I'll consider it a failure.

That's just my perspective, of course. If you look at it in a different light, that's your prerogative

Again, I don't require the Libs to "fail" in importing refugees to disapprove of them lying during the election. The two are orthogonal to each other.

If you ask 'which is more important?', well, clearly I think the lying is a relatively minor concern - saving lives is far, far more important. But that's "just my perspective, of course". 

[crazy canuck]

Politicians have occasionally been known to lie in campaigns before. 

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

Uh, yes?

Point is that it isn't as horribly shocking that politicians may lie in election campaigns as you appear to think.

But it is horribly shocking that someone would accuse a politician of lying about something on these facts.  BB's criticism is more defensible.

BB's criticism wasn't really any different - in fact upthread he used the same term I did: willful blindness.

Actually BB made a point of saying he was not accusing them of lying.  The fact you see no distinction is telling. 

[Malthus]

Actually BB made a point of saying he was not accusing them of lying.  The fact you see not distinction is telling. 

Okay, then I'll ask you: according to you, is "willful blindness" distinct from "lying"? Yes or no?

[crazy canuck]

Actually BB made a point of saying he was not accusing them of lying.  The fact you see not distinction is telling. 

Okay, then I'll ask you: according to you, is "willful blindness" distinct from "lying"? Yes or no?

Yes.  Certainly.  Willful blindness is being reckless as to a state of facts.  That is BB's contention.  I disagree with him for the reasons I stated but at least he has a plausible argument.

You accuse them of knowing that they were saying something that was not true.  In this context I have no idea how one would ever prove that to be true.  They were making an estimate of when they might complete the task.  They missed the estimate but an amount of time that is inconsequential given the time lines the Conservatives were talking about.  That is not lying.  They are going to do what they said they would do but in a slightly greater period of time.

Put another way, if your kid tells you he will get his homework done by bedtime if you let him watch his favourite show, and then it turns out he needs to spend some additional time finishing his homework because he was overly optimistic in his estimate, will you accuse your kid of lying.  I hope not. 

[Barrister]

Actually BB made a point of saying he was not accusing them of lying.  The fact you see no distinction is telling. 

This is taking a very lawyerly turn.

Someone brought up the charge of perjury.  In order to prove a perjury charge you have to prove the Accused knew what they were saying is false.  It is for this reason I've never seen a successful perjury conviction - how do you prove what is in someone's mind?

However I had brought up the concept of willful blindness, where a party deliberately doesn't ask the right questions.  Willful blindness can amount to knowledge in a variety of circumstances - in my line of work failing to inquire whether a female you're going to have sex with is underage, or failing to inquire about the provenance of certain property you're about to buy.

But willful blindness doesn't apply to perjury charges.

So, very technically, no we can't "prove" that Trudeau and the Liberals were lying.

As a more practical matter, I think the distinction matters very little.  There's very little difference between making a promise you know you can't keep, and making a promise that you haven't bothered to check whether you can keep or not.