4 ms·

Politicians don't really need to be good at policy. They have people to do that. They just need to be charismatic - able to capture the imagination of a constit

Politicians don't really need to be good at policy. They have people to do that. They just need to be charismatic - able to capture the imagination of a constituency, and able to persuade other politicians to support their platform. Of course it'd be nice if our politicians were well-educated in the details of the policies they are championing, and if they could independently reason about the pros and cons, but realistically that's not what they're there for. They're like the sales guys at work - they might have some personal interest in techy details, but it's not what they're hired to do or what they excel at. They're hired to make the sales, not the product. I think the party strategists who picked a pretty face and a familiar name to represent the party did a decent job. Trudeau continues to have the confidence of most of his party, which is why he's still in the leadership position. He's clearly inoffensive enough that he can maintain support inside the party while also not igniting enough of a backlash amongst the voting public to indisputably defeat his party in 2021. He might be a milquetoast character representing an ideologically unadventurous party, but perhaps that's all he's meant to be?

im3w1l 4y ago
Politicians need to pick skilled policymakers. This can be done either by being good at policy themselves so that they can identify this skill in others, or by having above average people skills so they can identify it that way.
- eloff 4y ago
  Trudeau's policy picks were to check boxes on unwritten gender and race quotas. They are unlikely to have been the best people for the positions, because that wasn't the criteria being applied. Some people might take umbrage at me calling it out like that, but it sure looks like that's what actually happened. It was affirmative action to score political points. I don't like or agree with affirmative action as a policy. It's slapping a bandaid on the problem without addressing root causes. It's demeaning to the people selected, and it's discrimination on constitutionally protected grounds of gender, race, sexual identity, etc.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Frankly most of Trudeau's initial cabinet picks were just Chretien era loyalists.
- Jensson 4y ago
  People tend to value skills they themselves possess. If you have a leader with good technical skills then he will probably pick people with good technical skills. So socially competent leaders look for socially competent underlings, leaders who got there via nepotism probably applies nepotism as well when choosing etc.
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Honestly right now it feels like the Liberal Party is completely asleep at the wheel and there's a total absence of leadership at the moment and lots of ministerial files seem completely unmanaged or poorly managed. They were able to ride out the pandemic with some overall reasonable policies, and most of the stuff that annoyed people fell on the provinces. But they're clearly having a hard time transitioning now, and the Singh giving them a blank check has made them extra complacent. The stuff at the airports on its own is inexcusable. ArriveCAN needs to go. They need to respond boldly to this Rogers fiasco from Friday. They feel entirely flat footed to me. The expiration date is all over Trudeau and he needs to do the right thing and GTFO. And he needs to do it in a way that doesn't stiff Freeland and leave her in a Kim Campbell or Kathleen Wynne or Paul Martin type position. He needs to announce his resignation ASAP and call a leadership convention even if it's a coronation for Freeland. Singh I think has cost the NDP pretty much almost all their seats in the next election by propping Trudeau up right now. I have always voted NDP but I don't know what I'll do next time around. I say this as a left wing voter who doesn't want to see the Conservatives in charge. But every day they hold on they're just giving the Conservatives more momentum, even without a leader. I think when strategists look back they'll see Trudeau as a mistake. It got them power, but he was no Chretien or Trudeau Sr. He has been weak on policy and on leadership. And it will cost them in the long run. They blew their 3 gov'ts by basically getting almost nothing actually done on all their files they were so boldly proclaiming. It reminds me a lot of McGuinty's term: at the end most of the problems created by Mike Harris still hadn't been reversed. I feel the same way about this gov't and the Harper years. CO2 Emissions? Up. A lot. Indigenous reconciliation? Nope. Clean water to all reserves? Nope. And what they have accomplished (small carbon taxes, subsidized daycare) seems very vulnerable to immediate reversal on day one of a conservative gov't.
- atwood22 4y ago
  I can tell you're very passionate about these issues. I think you're falling into a trap, however, that has basically consumed the U.S. and all but ensured its fall from grace. I live in the U.S., but spend a large amount of time in Canada (3 months of the year). Canada is a great country compared to the U.S. Income inequality is much lower than in the U.S., you have decent health care, a sizable "blue collar" industry, the social fabric is strong, the people are nice, the country is stable, the nature is beautiful, etc. etc. etc. While Canada certainly has problems, I think it's important to remember that while things can certainly be better, that doesn't mean things are bad. The Rogers incident, for instance. It would be better if the incident didn't happen, but is really not worth being angry over. In the U.S., people seem to have forgotten this and began to get angry over why things weren't "better" even though things were really good. This divided the country, allowed a large percentage of the population to be controlled by outrage, and the aftermath is playing out right before our eyes. Before getting angry, try to identify all the things you have to be grateful for.

im3w1l 4y ago

Politicians need to pick skilled policymakers. This can be done either by being good at policy themselves so that they can identify this skill in others, or by having above average people skills so they can identify it that way.

eloff 4y ago
Trudeau's policy picks were to check boxes on unwritten gender and race quotas. They are unlikely to have been the best people for the positions, because that wasn't the criteria being applied. Some people might take umbrage at me calling it out like that, but it sure looks like that's what actually happened. It was affirmative action to score political points. I don't like or agree with affirmative action as a policy. It's slapping a bandaid on the problem without addressing root causes. It's demeaning to the people selected, and it's discrimination on constitutionally protected grounds of gender, race, sexual identity, etc.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Frankly most of Trudeau's initial cabinet picks were just Chretien era loyalists.
Jensson 4y ago
People tend to value skills they themselves possess. If you have a leader with good technical skills then he will probably pick people with good technical skills. So socially competent leaders look for socially competent underlings, leaders who got there via nepotism probably applies nepotism as well when choosing etc.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

Honestly right now it feels like the Liberal Party is completely asleep at the wheel and there's a total absence of leadership at the moment and lots of ministerial files seem completely unmanaged or poorly managed. They were able to ride out the pandemic with some overall reasonable policies, and most of the stuff that annoyed people fell on the provinces. But they're clearly having a hard time transitioning now, and the Singh giving them a blank check has made them extra complacent. The stuff at the airports on its own is inexcusable. ArriveCAN needs to go. They need to respond boldly to this Rogers fiasco from Friday. They feel entirely flat footed to me. The expiration date is all over Trudeau and he needs to do the right thing and GTFO. And he needs to do it in a way that doesn't stiff Freeland and leave her in a Kim Campbell or Kathleen Wynne or Paul Martin type position. He needs to announce his resignation ASAP and call a leadership convention even if it's a coronation for Freeland. Singh I think has cost the NDP pretty much almost all their seats in the next election by propping Trudeau up right now. I have always voted NDP but I don't know what I'll do next time around. I say this as a left wing voter who doesn't want to see the Conservatives in charge. But every day they hold on they're just giving the Conservatives more momentum, even without a leader. I think when strategists look back they'll see Trudeau as a mistake. It got them power, but he was no Chretien or Trudeau Sr. He has been weak on policy and on leadership. And it will cost them in the long run. They blew their 3 gov'ts by basically getting almost nothing actually done on all their files they were so boldly proclaiming. It reminds me a lot of McGuinty's term: at the end most of the problems created by Mike Harris still hadn't been reversed. I feel the same way about this gov't and the Harper years. CO2 Emissions? Up. A lot. Indigenous reconciliation? Nope. Clean water to all reserves? Nope. And what they have accomplished (small carbon taxes, subsidized daycare) seems very vulnerable to immediate reversal on day one of a conservative gov't.

atwood22 4y ago
I can tell you're very passionate about these issues. I think you're falling into a trap, however, that has basically consumed the U.S. and all but ensured its fall from grace. I live in the U.S., but spend a large amount of time in Canada (3 months of the year). Canada is a great country compared to the U.S. Income inequality is much lower than in the U.S., you have decent health care, a sizable "blue collar" industry, the social fabric is strong, the people are nice, the country is stable, the nature is beautiful, etc. etc. etc. While Canada certainly has problems, I think it's important to remember that while things can certainly be better, that doesn't mean things are bad. The Rogers incident, for instance. It would be better if the incident didn't happen, but is really not worth being angry over. In the U.S., people seem to have forgotten this and began to get angry over why things weren't "better" even though things were really good. This divided the country, allowed a large percentage of the population to be controlled by outrage, and the aftermath is playing out right before our eyes. Before getting angry, try to identify all the things you have to be grateful for.