Precisely. Diefenbaker was famously a good debater, but was actually very indecisive as PM (As told to me by thereon of his Whip). Most of Dief's floor moments were in Opisition.
No party leader is going to entirely please their constituency; sensible leaders have normally relied on senior figures to keep factions and tendencies confident that they have a voice at the top.
Mr Mulroney's croneyism was redeemed among business types by Mr Mazankowski and progressives by Mr Clark. Mr Trudeau's bolshie RC side was tempered by Mr Turner/Mr Lumley for business types, Roberts & Johnson for policy nerds, and Gray & Axworthy for the anglophone left. Mr Polièvre has a number of competent colleagues whom he should allow to the front to ensure that voters see the Conservatives as more than a one-note chihuahua ego vehicle; I think he is not serving his cause when he does not bring them forth.
Precisely. Diefenbaker was famously a good debater, but was actually very indecisive as PM (As told to me by thereon of his Whip). Most of Dief's floor moments were in Opisition.
While I know it's not who you meant, your mention of a Dief flunky spurned me into re-familiarizing myself with Sean O'Sullivan, Dief's latter-day assistant, later MP, and later RC priest.
Apparently, it was O'Sullivan who conceived the controversial DARE TO BE A PRIEST LIKE ME billboard campaign in the mid-1980s. I remember that being denounced by its critics as creepy and weird, but some reporting also claims it was succesful.
Eh, no, Charlie. As someone who spent 32 years in the GREAT CITY OF WINNING CHAMPIONS FOREVER, I don't need to hear your canned outrage at billionaire MAGA-connected celebrities, wistfilly prefaced by folksy recollections of watching The Great One play back in the day.
Though, if I'm being honest, I can't deny that this might be good politics. Bobby Orr got mentioned by Angus as a fallen idol as well. I do recall Orr being something of a hero around Edmonton in the pre-NHL 1970s, even though he was playing with a yankee team.
And a recent photo has just surfaced of Gretzky and Trump golfing together, in the absence of any statements from Gretzky denouncing his friend's ongoing annexationist rhetoric.
I will note that Gary Freaking Bettman has done a better job of defending Canadian sovereignty against Trump than has Number 99.
...
I will note that Gary Freaking Bettman has done a better job of defending Canadian sovereignty against Trump than has Number 99.
It is not Gretzky's job to criticize Trump. He is a private person, not a politician, and not responsible for defending Canadian sovereignty.
Also, I'm tired of hearing people saying you can only be friends with someone with whom you agree on every issue. That is an extremely intolerant attitude and very un-Christ-like. I recall several stories about Jesus associating with sinners.
...
I will note that Gary Freaking Bettman has done a better job of defending Canadian sovereignty against Trump than has Number 99.
It is not Gretzky's job to criticize Trump. He is a private person, not a politician, and not responsible for defending Canadian sovereignty.
That's a point. And I'll concede I was the one earlier mocking Charlie Angus for his schmaltzy lamentation of lost heroes.
Still, given that Trump had used Gretzky as a prop in his attempt at normalizing annexation, it's pretty bad PR for Gretzky himself not to have spoken out against that idea, and to now be photographed golfing with Trump.
BC's Father of Confederation was named Amor de Cosmos.
It was all downhill from there,
Né William Alexander Smith IIRC Perhaps we should only memorialize eminent political persons who rename themselves in a similarly artistic/eccentric manner.
BC's Father of Confederation was named Amor de Cosmos.
Is he officially classified as a Father Of Confederation? If so, I'd be willing to bet he's the only Mormon among the bunch. And probably even the only Mormon to have been a premier anywhere in Canada.
Tip of the iceberg. The plans to expand the Supplementary Reserve to 300,000 is the biggest military expansion we've had since the Second World War. I foresee tons of problems.
Tip of the iceberg. The plans to expand the Supplementary Reserve to 300,000 is the biggest military expansion we've had since the Second World War. I foresee tons of problems.
This is simply not going to be a thing. Where are the trainers going to come from? Running even a simple basic training course needs experienced NCOs (mainly), and also officers and more junior soldiers to be duty drivers and so on. They simply don't exist in the mass that would be required for even a tenth of that number.
I don't understand why this is even being discussed.
The customary way to do such a task is to promote every Regular Force (and probably Primary Reserve, aka the Militia) officer and member up two steps.
The US Army operated on such a principle during WWII. Most generals were actually colonels or majors in the Regular Army and held general rank as a theatre or mobilized rank.
Canada hasn't even contemplated such a task since 1939.
I agree it has fiasco written all over it. That number of troops implies conscription. As a rough estimate that is 2% of military age Canadians in uniform, assuming no gender restrictions (which we don't have right now).
It also implies expanding every Militia Regiment from a company to two full battalions and expanding every brigade to a full division. Peterborough would provide two full battalions and Ottawa would have to provide most of a division from just the city.
While this initiative might be worthwhile, my years of looking at budgets suggest that very few people have any idea of the direct costs involved--this thread excepted. Unless serious benefits are being offered to recruits (as in the US), I do not see those recruit numbers appearing. If we fall to the ancient Roman principle of granting citizenship to soldiers/mariners/aviators who step forward, that would help.
Along with the training considerations outlined by others, my knowledge of servicefolk's living conditions suggest that we will have a major (as in Major with flashing lights) accommodation-building campaign unless we intend to rely on winter-capable tents. Current barracks are overdue for replacement and have been for a few years now. Canadians have no idea of the costs of the military and have always hoped that it would be for free.
In terms of serious benefits, medical benefits are off the table as they are already provided through Medicare. Free University is already available through the Canadian Officer Training Corps programme, I went through school with a some people who took that option. It just isn't that popular.
So what we are left with is increased pay or perhaps an offer a paid-for house.
I have friends (and a medical specialist) who have benefitted by the COTC programming, but it doesn't seem to be taken up much, as SPK notes.
The US GI bill provides for a broader range of educational benefits post-service, including trade and vocational schools, and open to NCO and ratings. A housing allowance and book stipend is included and there is a survivor/dependents educational benefits programme. At times (I'm not sure of the current situation) low-cost mortgages and business start-up loans were available.
There were plenty of problems, including an astonishing level of racism in benefit distribution, especially in the 1940s and 1950s when local state boards allocated funds, but this seems to have abated (although we need to see what Mr Trump does when he notices that the programmes exist).
Canadians continue to be astonished that the military costs money and that they may have to pay for it. This is a recurrent theme in Canadian military history, dating back over a century.
The US also added lifefime, comprehensive medical care for veterans who served after 1947. The current minimum required period of service is 24 months with an honourable discharge.
Canada never developed the extensive infrastructure the VA had. I have a theory that universal medical care succeeded in part because it was easier for the Government of Canada to arrange universal medical care to everyone rather than construct a network of veterans's hospitals in a country where population density would not justifty their construction outside of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver (maybe Winnipeg and Ottawa if you're pushing it).
This is why Canada doesn't have the extenisve networ of veteran's hospitals the US has.
I mean, to be fair, reservists now have a form of pension (pro-rated for mostly part-time employment), and tuition fee subsidies; I'd be surprised if this didn't pay for itself through improved retention.
Comments
Mr Mulroney's croneyism was redeemed among business types by Mr Mazankowski and progressives by Mr Clark. Mr Trudeau's bolshie RC side was tempered by Mr Turner/Mr Lumley for business types, Roberts & Johnson for policy nerds, and Gray & Axworthy for the anglophone left. Mr Polièvre has a number of competent colleagues whom he should allow to the front to ensure that voters see the Conservatives as more than a one-note chihuahua ego vehicle; I think he is not serving his cause when he does not bring them forth.
While I know it's not who you meant, your mention of a Dief flunky spurned me into re-familiarizing myself with Sean O'Sullivan, Dief's latter-day assistant, later MP, and later RC priest.
Apparently, it was O'Sullivan who conceived the controversial DARE TO BE A PRIEST LIKE ME billboard campaign in the mid-1980s. I remember that being denounced by its critics as creepy and weird, but some reporting also claims it was succesful.
And a recent photo has just surfaced of Gretzky and Trump golfing together, in the absence of any statements from Gretzky denouncing his friend's ongoing annexationist rhetoric.
I will note that Gary Freaking Bettman has done a better job of defending Canadian sovereignty against Trump than has Number 99.
It is not Gretzky's job to criticize Trump. He is a private person, not a politician, and not responsible for defending Canadian sovereignty.
Also, I'm tired of hearing people saying you can only be friends with someone with whom you agree on every issue. That is an extremely intolerant attitude and very un-Christ-like. I recall several stories about Jesus associating with sinners.
That's a point. And I'll concede I was the one earlier mocking Charlie Angus for his schmaltzy lamentation of lost heroes.
Still, given that Trump had used Gretzky as a prop in his attempt at normalizing annexation, it's pretty bad PR for Gretzky himself not to have spoken out against that idea, and to now be photographed golfing with Trump.
It was all downhill from there,
Né William Alexander Smith IIRC Perhaps we should only memorialize eminent political persons who rename themselves in a similarly artistic/eccentric manner.
Is he officially classified as a Father Of Confederation? If so, I'd be willing to bet he's the only Mormon among the bunch. And probably even the only Mormon to have been a premier anywhere in Canada.
You do recall correctly. Apparently, he was living in California at the time, and had to petition the legislature to change his name.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/colt-modular-assault-rifles-army-9.7011113
This is simply not going to be a thing. Where are the trainers going to come from? Running even a simple basic training course needs experienced NCOs (mainly), and also officers and more junior soldiers to be duty drivers and so on. They simply don't exist in the mass that would be required for even a tenth of that number.
I don't understand why this is even being discussed.
https://theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-top-general-jennie-carignan-expansion-reserves-disasters-military/
The customary way to do such a task is to promote every Regular Force (and probably Primary Reserve, aka the Militia) officer and member up two steps.
The US Army operated on such a principle during WWII. Most generals were actually colonels or majors in the Regular Army and held general rank as a theatre or mobilized rank.
Canada hasn't even contemplated such a task since 1939.
I agree it has fiasco written all over it. That number of troops implies conscription. As a rough estimate that is 2% of military age Canadians in uniform, assuming no gender restrictions (which we don't have right now).
It also implies expanding every Militia Regiment from a company to two full battalions and expanding every brigade to a full division. Peterborough would provide two full battalions and Ottawa would have to provide most of a division from just the city.
Along with the training considerations outlined by others, my knowledge of servicefolk's living conditions suggest that we will have a major (as in Major with flashing lights) accommodation-building campaign unless we intend to rely on winter-capable tents. Current barracks are overdue for replacement and have been for a few years now. Canadians have no idea of the costs of the military and have always hoped that it would be for free.
So what we are left with is increased pay or perhaps an offer a paid-for house.
The US GI bill provides for a broader range of educational benefits post-service, including trade and vocational schools, and open to NCO and ratings. A housing allowance and book stipend is included and there is a survivor/dependents educational benefits programme. At times (I'm not sure of the current situation) low-cost mortgages and business start-up loans were available.
There were plenty of problems, including an astonishing level of racism in benefit distribution, especially in the 1940s and 1950s when local state boards allocated funds, but this seems to have abated (although we need to see what Mr Trump does when he notices that the programmes exist).
Canadians continue to be astonished that the military costs money and that they may have to pay for it. This is a recurrent theme in Canadian military history, dating back over a century.
Canada never developed the extensive infrastructure the VA had. I have a theory that universal medical care succeeded in part because it was easier for the Government of Canada to arrange universal medical care to everyone rather than construct a network of veterans's hospitals in a country where population density would not justifty their construction outside of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver (maybe Winnipeg and Ottawa if you're pushing it).
This is why Canada doesn't have the extenisve networ of veteran's hospitals the US has.