News   Sep 19, 2019
 132     0 
News   Sep 19, 2019
 286     0 
News   Sep 18, 2019
 1K     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,648
Reaction score
1,407
Your list is hilarious. Stephen Harper above PMs who led Canada through WWII and the Cold War?
Not sure which WWII you are referring to. The one I usually think of ended in 1945.
As far as Conservative PMs go, I’d even rate Mulroney higher than Harper.
Both Chretien and Mulroney have some pretty good and major achievements. But for Mulroney not tackling the debt and for Chretien the major scandal coming from his office. I had a hard time placing them.
Martin was kind of haphazard, and I likely give him marks for his time as Finance Minister, but he did keep things balanced and his biggest fault was that he was unable to sweep the Chretien corruption under the table.
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
4,251
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Toronto/EY
Kim Campbell gets such a bad rap. And it’s patently unfair. I think she would have been a fantastic PM if she actually got to serve longer. Unfortunately, she got to captain the sinking ship. Not to mention that sexism was probably more prevalent in those days. This was the same era when Hilary Clinton had to apologize for saying that she wouldn’t just stay home and bake cookies.

As for Trudeau being the worst..... The incumbent is always ranked the worst when they are in office. Once out, and they can be placed in the context of history, they start to look a lot better. A decade from now, having successfully navigated dealing with a USA in turmoil and spilling over its instability (white supremacy, refugee crisis, etc.), is going to count for a lot. Just like the credit Harper got for getting Canada through the GFC in 2008.
Campbell didn't have long in office to achieve much or wear all that much beyond a then unpopular Mulroney legacy.

That said, I think she may well have won that campaign, but for 2 memorable gaffes.

The commercial that appeared to make fun of Mr. Chretien's appearance; and the statement that “An election is no time to discuss serious issues”.

I can understand what she was trying to say by the latter, but that was damnably bad in the middle of a campaign.
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
4,251
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Toronto/EY
Not sure which WWII you are referring to. The one I usually think of ended in 1945.

Both Chretien and Mulroney have some pretty good and major achievements. But for Mulroney not tackling the debt and for Chretien the major scandal coming from his office. I had a hard time placing them.
Martin was kind of haphazard, and I likely give him marks for his time as Finance Minister, but he did keep things balanced and his biggest fault was that he was unable to sweep the Chretien corruption under the table.
Pearson is by far number one........

Look at that list of accomplishments posted by @kEiThZ

I notice you completely ignoring that.....as its inconvenient to your argument.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,877
Reaction score
1,993
Not sure which WWII you are referring to. The one I usually think of ended in 1945.
I was referring to the entire list of PMs covering WWII and the Cold War. All of whom you placed below Stephen Harper.

Are you really that much of a partisan hack or just haven’t read much history to know what some of these men accomplished? Answer honestly.

And this is not just a Liberal-Conservative thing. This list is just as offensive if you’re a conservative. You ranked Harper over Diefenbaker, the PM who cemented our defence relationship with the US through the creation of NORAD, campaigned against apartheid South Africa, gave aboriginals the vote, and passed the Bill of Rights. This is the PM who first articulated an argument against the exceptionalism of Quebec on the basis of the “One Canada” policy which conservatives to this day use to argue against special treatment for Quebec. You really going to say Harper should be ranked higher than him?

Both Chretien and Mulroney have some pretty good and major achievements. But for Mulroney not tackling the debt and for Chretien the major scandal coming from his office. I had a hard time placing them.
You’re letting your personal distaste for a specific policy or viewpoint cloud your 30 000 ft view of their accomplishments, which is what a ranking of Prime Ministers should be.

Martin was kind of haphazard, and I likely give him marks for his time as Finance Minister, but he did keep things balanced and his biggest fault was that he was unable to sweep the Chretien corruption under the table.
Exactly my point. Great finance minister. Almost negligible record as PM. Yet you ranked him above Trudeau Sr. who literally gave us the constitution we all live under today. Want to prove me wrong? Tell me one policy from Martin’s premiership that Canadians can truly attribute to him and will still think of decades from now.

Pearson is by far number one........

Look at that list of accomplishments posted by @kEiThZ

I notice you completely ignoring that.....as its inconvenient to your argument.
His ignorance of history is pretty damn obvious with that list. It’s embarrassing to have to admit that though. I get that. After all, the way we teach history in school is pretty crap. And his level of knowledge is pretty much in line with the average Joe who would also combine recency bias with political bias to give you a similarly shitty list.

On Lester Pearson....

Most historians rank Mike Pearson easily in the top 5. Some in the top 3. Literally everything we take for granted as part of our identity and basic socioeconomic structure in this country is due to that man’s leadership. And his ranking simply seems to go up with time. He was ranked 6th on the list of Greatest Canadians. And just see the Macleans ranking each decade for him:


The most insane part of the Lester Pearson story? Mike achieved all that with two minority governments and just a day short of 5 years in office. To do that much in minority government truly takes some masterful political skills. He managed to balance the left and right to get most of his political priorities through. Can you imagine any politician achieving that volume of change in 5 years of majority leadership today? Let alone minority government.
 
Last edited:

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,877
Reaction score
1,993
I thought that'd be John Turner.
Good point. I forget about him. Sort of group him in with Joe Clark. Same era.

But Martin is definitely overranked on Burl Oak’s list. And to rank him significantly above Trudeau Sr. who confronted FLQ terrorism and Quebec separatism, repatriated the Constitution, and gave us official bilingualism is just nuts. PET came third on the list of Greatest Canadians on the CBC poll. It says something about Burl Oak’s bias that PET is second last on the list, above his son.

And I actually think PET is historically overrated!
 
Last edited:

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,648
Reaction score
1,407
Trudeau and the Liberals somehow gets credit for destroying separatists, although the only separation referendum, and the only separatist PQ election majorities, occurred under the Liberals. Much like Justin is doing, Pierre emboldened the separatist because the media portrayed him as the only leader able to handle them - and so it suited his political purpose.
The parts of our Constitution that are working fine were all written 150 years ago. The reason we keep hearing about 1982 is because all the troubles with our Constitution stem from there.
Add in adding debt and alienating the West, and its easy to see why Pierre is ranked so low.
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
4,251
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Toronto/EY
Trudeau and the Liberals somehow gets credit for destroying separatists, although the only separation referendum, and the only separatist PQ election majorities, occurred under the Liberals. Much like Justin is doing, Pierre emboldened the separatist because the media portrayed him as the only leader able to handle them - and so it suited his political purpose.
The parts of our Constitution that are working fine were all written 150 years ago. The reason we keep hearing about 1982 is because all the troubles with our Constitution stem from there.
Add in adding debt and alienating the West, and its easy to see why Pierre is ranked so low.
Stop embarrassing yourself. Its such a routine affair around here, many have come to tune it out and pay no attention to you; I just can't abide letting your nonsense stand unchallenged.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,877
Reaction score
1,993
You still haven't answered my question. Were you unaware of the accomplishments of all the other PMs you ranked below Harper?

Yes or no.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,877
Reaction score
1,993
No idea where to put this. But an example of the left eating itself:


This is the kind of insanity that is going to drive away a lot of middle class voters from the Liberals. Increasingly as they become the brand ambassadors for the LPC.

There's also the automatic defence of Trudeau conducting himself unethically, while being defended by Liberal partisans:


The worst offence to me isn't even SNC-Lavalin. If there was justice in the world, he would have lost the big chair for his treatment of Mark Norman

Prosecuting public servants for no reason but actually following instructions issued by a previous government, while yours aren't in place. And then effectively obstructing parts of the investigation. Harper may have muzzled climate scientists. He didn't actually prosecute them.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,877
Reaction score
1,993
Last edited:

adma

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
16,412
Reaction score
1,039
Most historians rank Mike Pearson easily in the top 5. Some in the top 3. Literally everything we take for granted as part of our identity and basic socioeconomic structure in this country is due to that man’s leadership. And his ranking simply seems to go up with time. He was ranked 6th on the list of Greatest Canadians. And just see the Macleans ranking each decade for him:


The most insane part of the Lester Pearson story? Mike achieved all that with two minority governments and just a day short of 5 years in office. To do that much in minority government truly takes some masterful political skills. He managed to balance the left and right to get most of his political priorities through. Can you imagine any politician achieving that volume of change in 5 years of majority leadership today? Let alone minority government.
I think that a lot of the crowd BurlOak hangs with still regrets the replacement of the Red Ensign ;-)
 

lenaitch

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
1,022
Reaction score
695
Trudeau and the Liberals somehow gets credit for destroying separatists, although the only separation referendum, and the only separatist PQ election majorities, occurred under the Liberals. Much like Justin is doing, Pierre emboldened the separatist because the media portrayed him as the only leader able to handle them - and so it suited his political purpose.
The parts of our Constitution that are working fine were all written 150 years ago. The reason we keep hearing about 1982 is because all the troubles with our Constitution stem from there.
Add in adding debt and alienating the West, and its easy to see why Pierre is ranked so low.
When you say "Trudeau and the Liberals" are you are displaying you partisan approach and destroying any hope of objectivity.

Standing up to an adversary is bad because it emboldens them? So, appeasement is good?

What parts of the Constitution are not working well? If by "all our troubles", do you mean the evolving legal positions involving the Charter (you know, the 'new part')? The SCOC has consistently taken the position that the Charter is a living document, potentially to avoid the more absolutist language of the US Constitution. Or do you want society to party like it's 1967 - forever?
 
Top