Tory Connections Lead

jdobbin · December 13, 2007

The political leanings of high profile appointments was off kilter for too long. Harper's appointments merely level the playing field. Opposition supporters are understandably upset. Why would they begrudge the Conservatives' day in the sun when they were in the wilderness for all those many years? Pass the suntan lotion.

It isn't the Opposition members the Tories should worry about. One of the things that helped build credibility for Harper was the accountability issue. This certainly doesn't help him when various patronage appointments come to light.

gc1765 · December 13, 2007

No crickets. He has definitely been more open and transparent than Paulie or Jean's gov'ts.

So that's it then? No condemnation? As long as they are better than the last guys, they don't deserve to be criticized?

By the way, what's with "Paulie"? I thought you were opposed to names like that? Two wrongs don't make a right...just like two political parties making patronage appointments don't make a right.

Michael Bluth · December 13, 2007

What?
And are you claiming that Harper didn't say he wouldn't make patronage appts???

Can't prove a negative. But you can definitely prove what Harper said ... if he said it.

Shakeyhands · December 13, 2007

Can't prove a negative. But you can definitely prove what Harper said ... if he said it.

Michael, you of all people should know that Harper promised to end partisian appointments with his accountability act. Here we are almost one year to the day that the act was passed and we STILL don't see an idependant review board that was promised to end the activity, yet almost every couple months or more we see more partisan appointments.

Are you saying that these partisan appointments aren't happening?

Michael Bluth · December 13, 2007

By the way, what's with "Paulie"? I thought you were opposed to names like that? Two wrongs don't make a right...just like two political parties making patronage appointments don't make a right.

Are you admitting that names like Steve and Stevey are wrongs?

Until that's a universal standard on the board it's only fair to use Steph and Paulie.

Michael, you of all people should know that Harper promised to end partisian appointments with his accountability act. Here we are almost one year to the day that the act was passed and we STILL don't see an idependant review board that was promised to end the activity, yet almost every couple months or more we see more partisan appointments.
Are you saying that these partisan appointments aren't happening?

Provide the context of these 'promises'. That's the only way to fairly judge Harper's actions.

Why are you refusing to do so?

It really weakens your case and adds to the shrillness ... which I didn't believe was possible.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Michael Bluth

Shakeyhands · December 13, 2007

Provide the context of these 'promises'. That's the only way to fairly judge Harper's actions.
Why are you refusing to do so?

It really weakens your case and adds to the shrillness ... which I didn't believe was possible.

Ummmm... the Accountability act... Oddly difficult to find a quote where haper says anything about it...

Clean up appointment and contracting processes to remove the potential for political patronage to creep in.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/04/11/...bility-act.html

"We achieved significant improvements on things like whistleblower protection, eliminating patronage appointments and tying a cowbell around lobbyists' necks," Martin (NDP) said in a release.

Promises to bring in tough new rules on ethics and accountability formed the foundation of the Conservative election platform in the last election.

http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=54049

Another oldie....

NDP MP Pat Martin was furious about the rush of patronage appointments, noting Harper's new public appointments commission is to take effect on New Year's Day under the much-vaunted Public Accountability Act.
"This is really crass and insulting to the new process they promised to respect," said Martin. "The appointments commission was supposed to mark the end of patronage pork-barrelling."

Martin said Harper may have intentionally filled some of the postings before the deadline for the new appointments panel because "they may not have survived the scrutiny of an independent review."

A long-time Conservative fundraiser in New Brunswick, Stephen Campbell, was named a director of the Saint John Port Authority, while Sharon Piper, chair of the past election nomination committee for Flaherty's Whitby-Oshawa Conservative Association, was named head of the employment insurance board of referees for the Toronto district.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...6b6&k=28765

It really weakens your case and adds to the shrillness ... which I didn't believe was possible.

Sigh.. another personal attack, why do they please you so?

Edited December 13, 2007 by Shakeyhands

guyser · December 13, 2007

No crickets. He has definitely been more open and transparent than Paulie or Jean's gov'ts.

Move the goalposts when it suits you? More than..?

Can't answer that question because it's based on a false premise.
"The Auditors"? that means you would be able to provide a link. If you actually did want an answer.

So you can ignore it again? You know which one I am talking about. Pretty funny in that you stopped posting in that thread as soon as I posted contradictory information. But thats okay, you couldnt spin it so you ignored it. It was obvious. Why you would want to repeat that and look foolih only you can answer.

Still miles and miles to go. Harper won't serve over a decade as PM no matter what. So that is moot...
Again, evidence? Proof? Why bother... You've deluded yourself to that point that you see it as black and white.

The supposed 'raft' of appointments can fit in a raft. Ahhh the irony!

Yes they have some ways to go to be as bad. Congrats, they are closing in with each and every day.

Deluded? Me? Oh please, coming from the spinmeister that is quite a stretch. You can note I dont hold the Libs in any high esteem, and have bashed them pretty good where warranted.

You...nope.

Topaz · December 13, 2007

The difference is the timing and everyone should really think about this is, the future of Canada and the link that Harper has to the SPP. Next year, alot of the senators are going to retire and there Harper will replace them with Cons. I not sure what the numbers will total but I think Canadians should be watching the Libs and the Cons, on this topic that would lead us to become N.Americans. Canada will have to change its laws, military, customs anything that is different from the US, Canada and Mexico merges with the US. Some has already approached the government to change the looney to amero. IF Canadians don't want this then they better sided up to the NDP. BTW, in the past, I've supported the Libs and the PC's.

Michael Bluth · December 13, 2007

Move the goalposts when it suits you? More than..?

My statements are by no means contradictory. If other people misrepresent what the goverment supposedly campaigned on I don't feel obliged to play by where they have set the goalposts.

Move the goalposts when it suits you? More than..?

I have been entirely consistent on the matter. Forgive me for not allowing opponents of the Government to set what the goalposts are.

Guyser, you said this about providing evidence of some sort of Auditor's report.

So you can ignore it again? You know which one I am talking about.

Nope, I don't.

Harper is PM because enough people decided to judge the Conservatives, and Liberals, on their records rather than let the other side define them. That same process will lead to a Conservative majority next election.

Ummmm... the Accountability act... Oddly difficult to find a quote where haper says anything about it...

Perhaps your recollection is a little tainted.

There are hundreds of quotes with Harper talking about the accountability act. Alas, none fit your recollection. tsk tsk tsk

Shakeyhands · December 13, 2007

There are hundreds of quotes with Harper talking about the accountability act. Alas, none fit your recollection. tsk tsk tsk

Do you deny that patronage appointments were encompassed in the accountability act?

gc1765 · December 13, 2007

Are you admitting that names like Steve and Stevey are wrongs?

It doesn't really bother me that much when people use names like Steve or Paulie. What bothers me more is the hypocrisy of criticizing others for doing something and then doing it yourself. Kind of like Harper and his patronage appointments.

Until that's a universal standard on the board it's only fair to use Steph and Paulie.

See above.

Michael Bluth · December 13, 2007

It doesn't really bother me that much when people use names like Steve or Paulie. What bothers me more is the hypocrisy of criticizing others for doing something and then doing it yourself. Kind of like Harper and his patronage appointments.

If you look back you will see that the time last time I publicly complained about the use of such names took place just before the first time I used such names.

The mods weren't going to act, so I thought it best to join in and play as the rules are currently being interpreted.

Hypocrisy? I guess for not publicly stating what I just explained.

Do explain the hypocrisy in Harper's actions by actually illustrating what he said and comparing it with his actions.

Do you deny that patronage appointments were encompassed in the accountability act?

Here's an actual link to the Accountability Act. (Boy was that hard to find. :lol: ) Do pick out the relevant section that Harper has broken.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Michael Bluth

guyser · December 14, 2007

Guyser, you said this about providing evidence of some sort of Auditor's report.

Here you go...

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...64-be4f32b3312c

This is in reply that you said the cons had accountibilty, and I asked really..? crickets. I can see why.

just a snip for those who may not want to click the link

"Too often, access is denied to hide wrongdoing, or to protect officials or governments from embarrassment, rather than to serve a legitimate confidentiality requirement."

Edited December 14, 2007 by guyser

gc1765 · December 14, 2007

If you look back you will see that the time last time I publicly complained about the use of such names took place just before the first time I used such names.
The mods weren't going to act, so I thought it best to join in and play as the rules are currently being interpreted.

Hypocrisy? I guess for not publicly stating what I just explained.

Do explain the hypocrisy in Harper's actions by actually illustrating what he said and comparing it with his actions.

The Conservative 2006 platform criticizes the Liberals for appointing "insiders", which is exactly what the Conservatives are doing now. To be fair, the last time I remember Harper complaining about patronage appointments took place just before the Conservatives took office (i.e. before the first time they made such a patronage appointment). I guess the (Conservative) government decided not to act to change the rules, so I guess they are simply playing by "the rules"...not that it makes it any better.

Michael Bluth · December 14, 2007

"Too often, access is denied to hide wrongdoing, or to protect officials or governments from embarrassment, rather than to serve a legitimate confidentiality requirement."

Do you even know what an auditor is?

"Too often, responses to access requests are late, incomplete, or overly censored," Information Commissioner Robert Marleau said in his first report.

Apparently you don't.

The Conservative 2006 platform criticizes the Liberals for appointing "insiders", which is exactly what the Conservatives are doing now.

Conveniently can't find a link hey?

I see the talk about the Accountability Act ended when I provided a link. :rolleyes:

Edited December 14, 2007 by Michael Bluth

gc1765 · December 14, 2007

Conveniently can't find a link hey?
I see the talk about the Accountability Act ended when I provided a link.

A link to the Conservative 2006 platform? Sorry, I assumed you already had it. Here you go: Link

When did I mention the accountability act?

Michael Bluth · December 14, 2007

When did I mention the accountability act?

Are you the only one taking the Government to task in this thread?

Now to refute the argument from the platform...

1. Have any of those six offices of Parliament been appointed without a secret ballot of all MPs?

2. Harper tried to set up a merit-based Public Appointments Commission. He nominated the eminently qualified Gwyn Morgan to lead it. The opposition played partisan games with him.

3. Ministerial staff and other appointees do not receive favoured treatment when applying for public service appointments.

Seems like Harper has kept his word on all three promises. Too bad you had to read something more into the platform than was there in your attempt to paint the Government with the stench of the Liberals they replaced. :lol:

Edited December 14, 2007 by Michael Bluth

gc1765 · December 14, 2007

1. Have any of those six offices of Parliament been appointed without a secret ballot of all MPs?
2. Harper tried to set up a merit-based Public Appointments Commission. He nominated the eminently qualified Gwyn Morgan to lead it. The opposition played partisan games with him.

3. Ministerial staff and other appointees do not receive favoured treatment when applying for public service appointments.

Seems like Harper has kept his word on all three promises. Too bad you had to read something more into the platform than was there in your attempt to paint the Government with the stench of the Liberals they replaced.

Strawman alert! I said the Conservatives criticized the Liberals for appointing "insiders". Care to refute that?

jdobbin · December 14, 2007

Strawman alert! I said the Conservatives criticized the Liberals for appointing "insiders". Care to refute that?

Canadians certainly can see who the partisan appointees are even if the Tories can't.

Michael Bluth · December 14, 2007

Strawman alert! I said the Conservatives criticized the Liberals for appointing "insiders". Care to refute that?

Here is exactly what the Conservative platform said.

Make qualified government appointments
The Liberals have repeatedly appointed insiders, in some cases completely unqualified to important public offices. Liberal candidates and MPs have received appointments as heads of Crown corporations, board members, and ambassadors. Liberal staffers, including some of those responsible for the sponsorship program, have worked their way into key positions in the public service

Which unqualified 'insiders' have been appointed?

Which Liberal candidates and MPs have received appointments?

Have any Conservative staffers worked their way into key positions in the public service?

jdobbin · December 14, 2007

Here you go...
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...64-be4f32b3312c

This is in reply that you said the cons had accountibilty, and I asked really..? crickets. I can see why.

This government has gotten more secretive in every year it has been in power.

Mr. Marleau's report graded the performance of 17 government institutions in respecting the freedom of information law. Apart from the Privy Council Office, it also gave failing grades to the RCMP, the Justice Department, Health Canada and Transport Canada. An F, considered a "red alert," means that more than 20 per cent of access to information request are declined.
Despite fears that Mr. Marleau would be gentler than his outspoken predecessors, the new commissioner vowed to hold ministers and officials to "account for the good administration of the act."

Mr. Marleau also warned proponents of comprehensive reforms to government accessibility to be careful what they wish for.

"From a government's perspective, reform might entail making it easier to justify secrecy, making it more expensive to use the act, weakening the power of oversight, removing classes of records from the act's coverage, and so forth."

Endorsing criticisms voiced by his predecessor, John Reid, Mr. Marleau said the Conservative government's proposed reforms under the Federal Accountability Act "did little to allay such fears."

gc1765 · December 14, 2007

Which unqualified 'insiders' have been appointed?
Which Liberal candidates and MPs have received appointments?

Have any Conservative staffers worked their way into key positions in the public service?

The "insiders" that have been appointed are mentioned in the opening post and the link provided in that post.

Michael Bluth · December 14, 2007

The "insiders" that have been appointed are mentioned in the opening post and the link provided in that post.

Not a hint of them being 'unqualified'.

You really are grasping at straws with this one.

jdobbin · December 14, 2007

The "insiders" that have been appointed are mentioned in the opening post and the link provided in that post.

I suppose we could say every single Liberal who was appointed was qualified if the Tories want to stretch the accountability angle.

Edited December 14, 2007 by jdobbin

gc1765 · December 14, 2007

Not a hint of them being 'unqualified'.
You really are grasping at straws with this one.

The Conservatives were criticizing the appointment of Liberal insiders, SOME of which were unqualified.

You are one of the few people I know who could try to spin that into not being critical of appointing insiders - unqualified or not.

But if that's the angle you want to play, I'll ask you right now, point blank: Do you see any problems with appointing predominantly "insiders", be they qualified or not? I mean, if the Liberals appointed all of their "insiders" to various positions, but they were all reasonably qualified, would you have a problem with that?