Chronic weaknesses in the Liberal government weren't fixed, the former finance minister says in a new book, and Canada's prosperity suffered
Gentle reminder: If you've posted a few dozen comments to this particular thread, please consider that at some point you probably finished making your useful points.
None of us can make others abandon their point of view, and switching to name-calling won't improve our chances. Move on.
This brief summary of a book written by the ultimate insider of the Trudeau Government confirms what many observers have written for years. The administration is a top down PMO driven operation that treats Cabinet Ministers like little kids. The quote from the article sums it up nicely:
“But Morneau eventually decides Trudeau’s assets are limited by poor management skills and “inability or lack of interest in forging relationships” with “me and, as far as I could tell, the rest of his cabinet.”
The poor management skills must surely include the composition of Cabinet based on image rather than whether the appointees could actually do the work. Further to that, many of these hopeless Ministers are left to flounder in embarrassment for months and years. If they are getting their marching orders from the PMO that isn’t very flattering for anyone involved. Is there a willingness to accept mediocrity from Cabinet or does anyone know an outstanding Minister if they saw one?
Modern politics has morphed into a Leader dominated animal, but a functioning Government still needs team players who share goals and agree on priorities moving forward. Justin Trudeau should give that a try.
"He admired Stephen Harper’s decision to raise the age for retirement benefits, which the Trudeau government promptly reversed."
The two-year delay in receiving OAP would not affect those in Morneau's income class but rather those who have spent their lives in hard labour, or those who are close to the poverty line.
This leads me to suspect that Morneau's zeal for productivity increases reflects a euphemism for funneling more subsidies to the corporate elites that Morneau represents, rather than for spreading economic benefits to all.
Ironic that Morneau does not seem to understand how many of his pro-business policies have led to greater inequality and the rise of populism:
“Populism is not a political movement on its own. It is a reaction to feelings of alienation, a sense that power resides within some definition of social elites, unavailable to ‘ordinary people.’”
One simple look at the electoral map says it all. Trudeau is all about division. He’s lied his way into the NDP turf and the gullible urbanites lap it all up. Hopefully his high spending, high inflation policies bites them in the ass hard enough they see the light.
Another good morning read, and certainly makes one wanting to listen to the upcoming Moneau interview podcast.
As evidenced by the last week of testimony at the recent Emergencies Act Commission hearing, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau likes to be the puppeteer, but not one hiding behind the curtain, rather out front full of self-adulation.
This was previously confirmed by former Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and now former Finance Minister Bill Morneau. Prime Ministers should remember they are the "prime" minister, not the only minister, and healthy debate leads to well thought out decisions.
Politically, what was the point of Morneau? I mean, why did he even bother getting into it?
On China: “If you insist on living exclusively according to your highest principles, you’ll find yourself living with a very small number of people,” he writes.
My principles include isolating countries actively committing genocide but I guess that bar’s too high?
From Paul’s account, Morneau sounds like he belongs in the Conservative party rather than part of a Liberal government. I can understand his frustration if he believes that he’s not being listened to. However, I suspect that, like Wilson-Rabould, he may not be a good team player when his point of view is not accepted. His criticism of PM Trudeau may be justified, especially in those early years of the regime but he still is the PM and has to make decisions. It’s disappointing but not unexpected that he didn’t agree with the decision to reinstate 65 as the pensionable age. That was a very popular decision, economics be damned. Perhaps one has to consider that when you are PM. You can’t govern if you’re not elected.
A little honesty about Trudeau, even from a retired Liberal Cabinet Minister, is reassuring.
Morneau was a huge disappointment. I never expected much from Trudeau and others but had some hope that Morneau wouldn’t just be another useless minister.
I think Morneau didn’t know and still don’t know how federal politics work based on this article. The decision to reverse the increase of the age of eligibility for retirement benefits was part of the 2015’s liberal platform under which he run under lol. Also, it will be interesting to see if the book talks about WE charity.
Mr Morneau had one thing going for him. He is an economist, has a master from the London School of Economics and a businessman, so he had a solid background for a Finance Minister. Right now we have a Finance Minister who is spending more time working as a Foreign Minister. This says a lot about Who works best at What in this dysfunctional outfit. There is big malaise in this government starting with a PM who cannot ever give a straight answer to a question.
Valid critique of government shorter-term focus and governments have struggled for years on how to improve productivity for which we probably need a new MacDonald commission for deeper analysis and recommendations. Always aa challenge having a finance minister who is effective politically as well as having business experience.
Well, as a teenager, I purchased some records and paperbacks. But not many. My Dad emphasized that, while they'd try to help with University, and offer free rent (for the 8 months I was in school, had to pay the other four I had a job), I really had to save up the money myself. I got a $2.50/hr job at 15, sweeping, did a little better the next two summers, and recall bragging my bank account had hit "four figures" in 1976. "Kids these days" have legit complaints about me paying $700/year tuition that fall, but it was most of the money I had. (You're getting the bio because I'm just four years older; our teens are fairly comparable.)
In no universe nearby me, was there a kid that could buy a swimming-pool company. The richest kids I knew had their own (very used) car. We were not poor, I saw Disneyland at 9, the envy of my peers. And this is the same guy who notes that "a sense that power resides within some definition of social elites, unavailable to ‘ordinary people." .... without having the words "LIKE ME" in there anywhere??
Man, I was liking this guy, I'm sure all his complaints about Trudeau are correct. Morneau for the win!
But then that. And the raising the retirement age (classic income-inequality dick move), and the China treason. (His "best principles" argument was also great one for the US staying out of WW2.)
Yeah, I'm just going to start using "treason" for support for dictator-engagement, be it Saudi, or Russia, or China. All into the deplorables-bin with Venezuela. Remember Venezuela? You're in the small minority if you DON'T act on those "highest principles" with left-wing dictators, Bill, or geopolitical-enemy dictators in Iran: with those, we can be all-fired moral! Only dictators that enrich OUR rich people, the pool-company-buyers, are dictators we'll just have to stomach.
I guess I've been mainlining too much Tim Snyder, since the Ukraine war broke out, and since China poisoned the world with its incompetence. (I don't know whether they are incompetent handling food, or incompetent at grinding up endangered species for fake Viagra, or incompetent at running the Level 4 biolab the French built for them. It's "Chinese dictators" in charge of all three efforts.)
Reading Tim Snyder counsels me to declare Bill Morneau dead to me, politically, but his exposure of Trudeau's appearance-over-substance (that's Trump-like!) governance is appreciated.
This except, which I will assume is representative, shows Morneau to be an arrogant technocrat with aspirations to power. Just as Poilievre appeals to a faction that has effectively captured the conservative party, Morneau seeks to activate -- or shall we say, groom -- bluish liberals. Yet, he still does not understand, and cannot commit to, genuinely democratic politics.
What Morneau failed to and still fails to understand is that the Trudeau government is not merely indifferent to, but opposed to, prosperity.
It sees prosperity as directly antithetical to both the environment and expansion of government power, its rhetorical and real objectives.