[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Where is the bias?  Who is saying delaying the target amount by a couple months is a bad idea?  Even the Conservatives say it is a good idea.

Which is why it was a dumb promise to make in the first place.  Everyone said so during the campaign.  It was patently obvious you couldn't relocate 25,000 people in two and a half months.

So why does the CBC give him praise, instead of criticizing what was an unrealistic promise in the first place?

I disagree.  It was an aspirational promise made in stark contrast to the Conservative idea of starting a barbaric cultural tip line.  Everyone is applauding the change in emphasis for the federal government beginning to actively try to assist the refugees.  I think that is well worth the praise it is receiving.

For you to find bias you would have to point so some group that is critical of this move that is not being reported.  Since there is no group that is critical of this decision how can there be bias?

[Valmy]

I don't know. Portraying not fulfilling a bullshit or symbolic promise as some kind of brilliant move is quite a spin.

[Jacob]

Where is the bias?  Who is saying delaying the target amount by a couple months is a bad idea?  Even the Conservatives say it is a good idea.

Which is why it was a dumb promise to make in the first place.  Everyone said so during the campaign.  It was patently obvious you couldn't relocate 25,000 people in two and a half months.

So why does the CBC give him praise, instead of criticizing what was an unrealistic promise in the first place?

Because a delay of a few months isn't a big deal, when the substance of the promise is delivered. The important thing with "25,000 by 2015" is the "25,000" and the urgency, not the specific date IMO. If they're two months late (I think that's the schedule), they still delivered on the important part of the promise - to act quickly to get bring a substantial number of refugees to Canada.

Harping on a two month delay - as opposed to a two year delay or something - seems kind of churlish, to be frank.

[Jacob]

I don't know. Portraying not fulfilling a bullshit or symbolic promise as some kind of brilliant move is quite a spin.

I don't know if it's brilliant or anything, but if you can move from "we made a big promise, but we are being realistic and delivering the substance of it with a bit of a delay but we are delivering" and have the people who want you to deliver the promise accept that as reasonable, that's not a bad way to transition from election promises to the practicalities of governing.

[crazy canuck]

I don't know. Portraying not fulfilling a bullshit or symbolic promise as some kind of brilliant move is quite a spin.

But they are fulfilling it, just 60 days later then hoped.  They are processing about 100 applicants a day in Lebanon; 10,000 will arrive by the end of December and the balance will arrive in the next 60.  ie this government is actually putting resources into this question and has devoted the early days of the government to accomplishing the goal.

It would have been a bad practical and political judgment to rush the remaining 15k in just to say they had met their election promise.  Again, try to find any group involved in this that has anything bad to say about the decision. 

[Grey Fox]

CC : LPC spin doctor.

NOW that's a change.

[Barrister]

Where is the bias?  Who is saying delaying the target amount by a couple months is a bad idea?  Even the Conservatives say it is a good idea.

Which is why it was a dumb promise to make in the first place.  Everyone said so during the campaign.  It was patently obvious you couldn't relocate 25,000 people in two and a half months.

So why does the CBC give him praise, instead of criticizing what was an unrealistic promise in the first place?

Because a delay of a few months isn't a big deal, when the substance of the promise is delivered. The important thing with "25,000 by 2015" is the "25,000" and the urgency, not the specific date IMO. If they're two months late (I think that's the schedule), they still delivered on the important part of the promise - to act quickly to get bring a substantial number of refugees to Canada.

Harping on a two month delay - as opposed to a two year delay or something - seems kind of churlish, to be frank.

Note who I am critiquing here.  Not the Liberals - they couldn't possibly meet that promise without being horribly reckless as to the lives of those refugees.

My critique is of the CBC who proclaim breaking your campaign promise as being maybe "smartest decision his fledgling government makes in the next four years".

[crazy canuck]

Where is the bias?  Who is saying delaying the target amount by a couple months is a bad idea?  Even the Conservatives say it is a good idea.

Which is why it was a dumb promise to make in the first place.  Everyone said so during the campaign.  It was patently obvious you couldn't relocate 25,000 people in two and a half months.

So why does the CBC give him praise, instead of criticizing what was an unrealistic promise in the first place?

Because a delay of a few months isn't a big deal, when the substance of the promise is delivered. The important thing with "25,000 by 2015" is the "25,000" and the urgency, not the specific date IMO. If they're two months late (I think that's the schedule), they still delivered on the important part of the promise - to act quickly to get bring a substantial number of refugees to Canada.

Harping on a two month delay - as opposed to a two year delay or something - seems kind of churlish, to be frank.

Note who I am critiquing here.  Not the Liberals - they couldn't possibly meet that promise without being horribly reckless as to the lives of those refugees.

My critique is of the CBC who proclaim breaking your campaign promise as being maybe "smartest decision his fledgling government makes in the next four years".

You said it was a dumb promise to make.  Far from it.

[Barrister]

You said it was a dumb promise to make.  Far from it.

The timeline was dumb, and the Libs have essentially admitted it.

[crazy canuck]

CC : LPC spin doctor.

NOW that's a change.

I get more frustrated with Conservative types who are still not learning the lessons to be learned from the last election.  The Malthus Rule applies.  Eventually this government will become old, tired and maybe even corrupt.  We will need to replace them with another government and hopefully by then the Conservatives will have learned the lessons of the last election and will be ready to govern. 

[crazy canuck]

You said it was a dumb promise to make.  Far from it.

The timeline was dumb, and the Libs have essentially admitted it.

The timeline was aspirational and made all the difference in the world.

[Grey Fox]

CC : LPC spin doctor.

NOW that's a change.

I get more frustrated with Conservative types who are still not learning the lessons to be learned from the last election.  The Malthus Rule applies.  Eventually this government will become old, tired and maybe even corrupt.  We will need to replace them with another government and hopefully by then the Conservatives will have learned the lessons of the last election and will be ready to govern.

While Malthus and you are right. You have time expectation that are unrealistic. Politicos move slowly.

[crazy canuck]

CC : LPC spin doctor.

NOW that's a change.

I get more frustrated with Conservative types who are still not learning the lessons to be learned from the last election.  The Malthus Rule applies.  Eventually this government will become old, tired and maybe even corrupt.  We will need to replace them with another government and hopefully by then the Conservatives will have learned the lessons of the last election and will be ready to govern.

While Malthus and you are right. You have time expectation that are unrealistic. Politicos move slowly.

You are right of course.  But I am by nature very impatient. 

[Valmy]

I don't know. Portraying not fulfilling a bullshit or symbolic promise as some kind of brilliant move is quite a spin.

I don't know if it's brilliant or anything, but if you can move from "we made a big promise, but we are being realistic and delivering the substance of it with a bit of a delay but we are delivering" and have the people who want you to deliver the promise accept that as reasonable, that's not a bad way to transition from election promises to the practicalities of governing.

Well it is being sold as perhaps the smartest thing the Liberals are going to do for four years. So either it is brilliant or not much intelligence is expected on the part of the Liberals.

[Barrister]

You said it was a dumb promise to make.  Far from it.

The timeline was dumb, and the Libs have essentially admitted it.

The timeline was aspirational and made all the difference in the world.

That's such a beautiful piece of rhetoric!  You shouldn't take promises seriously - they're merely aspirational.