Canadian Politics

[JCon]

7 minutes ago, Rod Black said:

You neither agreed or disagreed. You get to pick. I need to leave for quite a while today, so feel free to take your time on how or if you’d care to respond. 

I don't agree that wanting small gov't is evil. I think it's narrow minded and has proved be a disaster in practice time and time again. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

8 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Talking about number of employees not wages. When unnecessary and redundant labor is added to the pool of employees, mostly in middle management positions, it increases the union take big time. 

Since forming government.

Actually, the growth is 18.5% during that period.

The growth in the private sector during this time is 9.8%.

So, its double you say. True.

What is missing is context.

During 2011, the Harper government did a 25% slash of jobs ACROSS the board. Every facet of federal public servants were affected. 

So, after Harper's government got sacked, the public sector had to catch up and rehire a tonne of staff to get back to decent staffing levels to deal with the back log and be able to effectively administer public services.

Ok. So, then private sector grew 9.8% during the time frame mentioned.

If you factor in the 25% initial deficit, the government is well behind the private sector in terms of growth.

[Wideleft]

15 minutes ago, Rod Black said:

Not evil. You’re a better person for agreeing. Each of the things that you mention, are valuable to you, I’ll agree you have a right to value them. 

You neither agreed or disagreed. You get to pick. I need to leave for quite a while today, so feel free to take your time on how or if you’d care to respond. 

[HardCoreBlue]

20 minutes ago, JCon said:

I don't agree that wanting small gov't is evil. I think it's narrow minded and has proved be a disaster in practice time and time again. 

Can we go back to your original question now?

[JCon]

1 minute ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Can we go back to your original question now?

No! Opinions only. No facts. 

[HardCoreBlue]

17 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Actually, the growth is 18.5% during that period.

The growth in the private sector during this time is 9.8%.

So, its double you say. True.

What is missing is context.

During 2011, the Harper government did a 25% slash of jobs ACROSS the board. Every facet of federal public servants were affected. 

So, after Harper's government got sacked, the public sector had to catch up and rehire a tonne of staff to get back to decent staffing levels to deal with the back log and be able to effectively administer public services.

Ok. So, then private sector grew 9.8% during the time frame mentioned.

If you factor in the 25% initial deficit, the government is well behind the private sector in terms of growth.

But apparently to some that's sucking some sort of teet.

[Wideleft]

1 hour ago, Mark H. said:

I don't know how you arrive at this conclusion.  Most unions got 1% - 3% annual increases under the NDP. Nurses even took a wage freeze at one point

The current increases are not lower, they are higher

Non-union got 0% cost of living for 6 years where I work (Health).

Edited June 21, 2023 by Wideleft

[HardCoreBlue]

1 minute ago, Wideleft said:

Non-union got 0% cost of living for 6 years where I work (Health).

ditto but replace 6 with 8 years. And emphasize 0% cost of living. Don't confuse that with raise. 

So in effect us teet suckers got rolled back. 

[WildPath]

33 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Actually, the growth is 18.5% during that period.

The growth in the private sector during this time is 9.8%.

So, its double you say. True.

What is missing is context.

During 2011, the Harper government did a 25% slash of jobs ACROSS the board. Every facet of federal public servants were affected. 

So, after Harper's government got sacked, the public sector had to catch up and rehire a tonne of staff to get back to decent staffing levels to deal with the back log and be able to effectively administer public services.

Ok. So, then private sector grew 9.8% during the time frame mentioned.

If you factor in the 25% initial deficit, the government is well behind the private sector in terms of growth.

This is likely what will be happening in Manitoba if the PCs are defeated. All those cuts will have to be made up. It will look like huge spending by the NDP just to get to stable ground and will be attacked by the PCs in the next election. Its how the label of fiscally responsible can be applied when facts/insight/analysis don't matter.

[JCon]

Given what was done to the civil service, it will take more than four years for it just to get back to the (already poor) situation it was in at the end of the last gov'ts term. 

It was devastating watching them dismantle it and expect more out of the remaining people. There is so little talent left. 

[Wideleft]

Just now, JCon said:

Given what was done to the civil service, it will take more than four years for it just to get back to the (already poor) situation it was in at the end of the last gov'ts term. 

It was devastating watching them dismantle it and expect more out of the remaining people. There is so little talent left. 

We lost so much institutional knowledge due to people leaving for more money and retirement AND replacing them with managed vacancies that we couldn't even train people (not new hires, because that was forbidden) to fill those roles.  It's going to take at least 10 years to recover even if staffing is restored.

People don't realize the damage that public service cuts do.

[17to85]

The beaurocracy is what keeps the government running... and given the population keeps growing you need to keep increasing the number of public servants. You start cutting these things then services stop working. 

Small government is a nice dream but it's not feasible in the current world. And lord knows if you shrink government then you are giving power to private corporations and I've seen enough to know they offer worse services at a higher cost to me the individual. 

[JCon]

4 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

We lost so much institutional knowledge due to people leaving for more money and retirement AND replacing them with managed vacancies that we couldn't even train people (not new hires, because that was forbidden) to fill those roles.  It's going to take at least 10 years to recover even if staffing is restored.

People don't realize the damage that public service cuts do.

People were happy to leave for less or the same. Just anything to get out from under the weight of this gov't. Woof. 

 

You'll always be able to attract people that can simply process transactions. That's easy. But, the brain drain has been significant and, for those of us that moved on, we're not going back. 

[Wideleft]

5 minutes ago, JCon said:

People were happy to leave for less or the same. Just anything to get out from under the weight of this gov't. Woof. 

You'll always be able to attract people that can simply process transactions. That's easy. But, the brain drain has been significant and, for those of us that moved on, we're not going back. 

Laying off managers PRIOR to Health transformation was just so stupid.  What could these people - who have been around so long and know staff and procedures contribute to the change process discussion?

[Wideleft]

1 hour ago, HardCoreBlue said:

ditto but replace 6 with 8 years. And emphasize 0% cost of living. Don't confuse that with raise. 

So in effect us teet suckers got rolled back. 

One of my staff had to sell a vehicle so he could afford to keep working.

[GCn20]

2 hours ago, Tracker said:

The concept of small government is woefully outdated. If you turn the clock back a hundred years or so, the services and demands of government were vastly different. Roads were not paved, it was everyone's responsibility to care for  their own, prescription meds did not have to vetted, extensive military presences were not required, if you could not support yourself, you would slowly starve to death, and on and on. Moreover, wealthy businesses and individuals were not as aggressively dominant in politics. The world has changed dramatically and an involved government is vital to keep some  semblance of balance between the haves and the have-nots. The degree of manipulation both possible and actually by powerful private and corporate interests has scaled up to a degree never seen before.

Epically incorrect. The Nobel prize was awarded to the man who thoroughly destroyed the concepts of Keynesian economics. Also, if you turn back the clock a hundred years you will also find that all of your fears you have listed are not valid due to technology doing this stuff for us. If you think big government keeps economic disparity lower you are incorrect, The bigger the government, the easier it is to corrupt. Also, an involved government does not have to automatically translate to big government. Trudeau's government is the biggest in the past 40 years and is absolutely, factually the most corrupt....without question....not even debatable. Anyone can see that, it seems many here prefer not to do so and that saddens me.

What does brighten my day is that in the latest poll by Abacus, 81% of Canadians would like to see a change in federal government. Seems Liberals are jumping ship. Thank god.

Edited June 21, 2023 by GCn20

[HardCoreBlue]

1 hour ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Actually, the growth is 18.5% during that period.

The growth in the private sector during this time is 9.8%.

So, its double you say. True.

What is missing is context.

During 2011, the Harper government did a 25% slash of jobs ACROSS the board. Every facet of federal public servants were affected. 

So, after Harper's government got sacked, the public sector had to catch up and rehire a tonne of staff to get back to decent staffing levels to deal with the back log and be able to effectively administer public services.

Ok. So, then private sector grew 9.8% during the time frame mentioned.

If you factor in the 25% initial deficit, the government is well behind the private sector in terms of growth.

No matter who you are disingenuous at the very least when that's purposely omitted/misconstrued.

[GCn20]

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

Laying off managers PRIOR to Health transformation was just so stupid.  What could these people - who have been around so long and know staff and procedures contribute to the change process discussion?

Yes, as I stated earlier, the way the cuts and to whom the cuts are made are of paramount importance and the PCs epically bungled that.

I'll just leave this here:

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cost-to-run-federal-government-increase-151b-a-year-1.6797486

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

The beaurocracy is what keeps the government running... and given the population keeps growing you need to keep increasing the number of public servants. You start cutting these things then services stop working. 

Small government is a nice dream but it's not feasible in the current world. And lord knows if you shrink government then you are giving power to private corporations and I've seen enough to know they offer worse services at a higher cost to me the individual. 

Not talking about privatization, I'm talking about optimization.

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

The beaurocracy is what keeps the government running... and given the population keeps growing you need to keep increasing the number of public servants. You start cutting these things then services stop working. 

Small government is a nice dream but it's not feasible in the current world. And lord knows if you shrink government then you are giving power to private corporations and I've seen enough to know they offer worse services at a higher cost to me the individual. 

I can accept growth of the public service in line with population growth. That is not what happened. 

[GCn20]

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

The beaurocracy is what keeps the government running... and given the population keeps growing you need to keep increasing the number of public servants. You start cutting these things then services stop working. 

Small government is a nice dream but it's not feasible in the current world. And lord knows if you shrink government then you are giving power to private corporations and I've seen enough to know they offer worse services at a higher cost to me the individual. 

Bureaucracy is what PREVENTS the government from running smoothly.

1 hour ago, HardCoreBlue said:

But apparently to some that's sucking some sort of teet.

For every 4 useful federal civil servants I'll find you one simply employed out of bloat. I'm sorry if that hurts your sensibilities but Trudeau is papering the place. The PCs had it right in Manitoba, then took it way too far and way too fast. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by GCn20

[Wideleft]

18 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

What does brighten my day is that in the latest poll by Abacus, 81% of Canadians would like to see a change in federal government. Seems Liberals are jumping ship. Thank god.

That's not what that poll says, but you already know that.  51% of respondents said either stay the course or there isn't a better alternative to Trudeau, despite change being their preference.

 

Also from Abacus:

 

Abacus Data Retweeted
David Coletto
@DavidColetto
Negative impressions of Pierre Poilievre have hit a new high. Negatives are up 5 over the past 45 days.

New 
@abacusdataca
 #cdnpoli poll:

 

[GCn20]

3 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

That's not what that poll says, but you already know that.  51% of respondents said either stay the course or there isn't a better alternative to Trudeau, despite change being their preference.

 

Also from Abacus:

 

Abacus Data Retweeted
David Coletto
@DavidColetto
Negative impressions of Pierre Poilievre have hit a new high. Negatives are up 5 over the past 45 days.

New 
@abacusdataca
 #cdnpoli poll:

 

People who want change tend to vote for change.....and that is precisely what the poll is saying. 81% would favor change. Bottom line....Liberal support is soft as hell. That may not lead to direct support for Poilievre, but it doesn't have to. Voter apathy, protest votes, votes for the NDP from the Liberals will work just as well. As Trudeau has clearly demonstrated a minority of motivated voters, and the CPC voters are highly motivated, can swing an election when the oppositions support is soft.

Edited June 21, 2023 by GCn20

[17to85]

14 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Bureaucracy is what PREVENTS the government from running smoothly.

Nope someone has to administer all the government programs. 

And you can't just "optimize" without going down the privatization road. If there was that much bloat some government would have just solved it already.  You can't do it, and if you try you wind up pushing to private delivery of said services.

[Wideleft]

10 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

People who want change tend to vote for change.....and that is precisely what the poll is saying. 81% would favor change. Bottom line....Liberal support is soft as hell. That may not lead to direct support for Poilievre, but it doesn't have to. Voter apathy, protest votes, votes for the NDP from the Liberals will work just as well. As Trudeau has clearly demonstrated a minority of motivated voters, and the CPC voters are highly motivated, can swing an election when the oppositions support is soft.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[JCon]

3 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Nope someone has to administer all the government programs. 

And you can't just "optimize" without going down the privatization road. If there was that much bloat some government would have just solved it already.  You can't do it, and if you try you wind up pushing to private delivery of said services.

Someone with no idea how gov't actually works but is just an ideologue. 

[HardCoreBlue]

14 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

That's not what that poll says, but you already know that.  51% of respondents said either stay the course or there isn't a better alternative to Trudeau, despite change being their preference.

 

Also from Abacus:

 

Abacus Data Retweeted
David Coletto
@DavidColetto
Negative impressions of Pierre Poilievre have hit a new high. Negatives are up 5 over the past 45 days.

New 
@abacusdataca
 #cdnpoli poll:

 

I think he’s hoping no one reads the actual reports he cites from.