Cabinet Shuffle

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will announce new cabinet appointments Wednesday in what is expected to be a minor shuffle.

A swearing-in ceremony will be held at 11 a.m. in Rideau Hall and will be broadcast live on CTV Newsnet.

I don't know that this does anything to change things up prior to an election.

I thought we might see a couple of people dropped altogether but that would be admitting that they were doing substandard jobs.

[capricorn]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I don't know that this does anything to change things up prior to an election.

It's a good idea from the perspective of exposing MPs to different files thereby broadening their knowledge of different portfolios. If there is an election in the fall, IMO there's really not that much time for anyone to royally screw up, although in politics one never knows. It's also a way to bring to public attention the fact that Bernier has been dealt with and is out of Cabinet.

[Fortunata]

I don't think Harper is too worried about broadening his MP's knowledge. To me it's more.. "who can I put in there that will screw up the least?"

[jdobbin]

I don't think Harper is too worried about broadening his MP's knowledge. To me it's more.. "who can I put in there that will screw up the least?"

I suppose that is true. Harper is the only minister who counts and Van Loan act as his voice. Very few ministers actually speak in Parliament. It is all on Van Loan doing the Harper spokesman job.

[jbg]

I don't think Harper is too worried about broadening his MP's knowledge. To me it's more.. "who can I put in there that will screw up the least?"

Compared to prior mandates the screwups seem to have been few and minor. This strikes me as a relatively competent and effective government.

[Fortunata]

This strikes me as a relatively competent and effective government.

It would.

[capricorn]

I don't think Harper is too worried about broadening his MP's knowledge. To me it's more.. "who can I put in there that will screw up the least?"

There's some truth to this. As a former federal manager with upward of 30 employees in my establishment, it was incumbent on me to be aware not only of the strengths of my staff, but most importantly of their weaknesses and shortcomings. That was always a consideration in assigning tasks. IMO that's just good management of human resources regardless of the work environment.

[August1991]

Compared to prior mandates the screwups seem to have been few and minor. This strikes me as a relatively competent and effective government.

I agree with jbg, this has been a remarkably competent government - when compared with some others.

Keep in mind that Harper himself (as well as many ministers) had never sat around a cabinet table before becoming PM. If a biker chick girlfriend is the most serious sign of incompetence, then I think the Tories can take pride in their short record. I happen to think many Canadians will agree.

What strikes me in this shuffle is the irony of two of the three big moves. Fortier is a senator never elected to anything and brough into the cabinet through the back door shortly after the election. Emerson was never elected as a Conservative and crossed the floor into cabinet immediately after his election as a Liberal.

Harper is as cynical as a Liberal to go into an election with these two guys in senior cabinet positions.

The one bright (if risky) spot is Christian Paradis. He's young and Harper is putting alot on his shoulders. Public Works is a minefield.

[jdobbin]

He's young and Harper is putting alot on his shoulders.

He's also married and has three children. Hopefully, he doesn't have a girlfriend as well. However, if he did, it would not be anyone's business even if she was a former biker chick.

Edited June 26, 2008 by jdobbin

[jbg]

He's also married and has three children. Hopefully, he doesn't have a girlfriend as well. However, if he did, it would not be anyone's business even if she was a former biker chick.

Is that what you'd say if things panned out that way? I sincerely doubt it.

[blueblood]

I have no problem with Harper running a tight ship in cabinet, he gets lots done with minor bumps along the way, and if somebody screws up they're toast.

That to me is an accountable and efficient gov't.

As far as fortier and Emerson, the way Harper runs things he can put anyone in their jobs and pull their strings, not that that's a bad thing, work gets done, done fast and done well.

[jdobbin]

As far as fortier and Emerson, the way Harper runs things he can put anyone in their jobs and pull their strings, not that that's a bad thing, work gets done, done fast and done well.

Why have a cabinet at all then?

[Bryan]

Why have a cabinet at all then?

You still have to have people to delegate tasks to.

Controlling what everyone does and says is good management. Trying to actually do it all yourself, not so much.

[jdobbin]

You still have to have people to delegate tasks to.

Controlling what everyone does and says is good management. Trying to actually do it all yourself, not so much.

It is hard to see evidence that Harper lets many of his ministers do much of anything. Even Baird is now hiding from responding on climate as was noted on Mike Duffy and the Mansbridge political panel.

[blueblood]

It is hard to see evidence that Harper lets many of his ministers do much of anything. Even Baird is now hiding from responding on climate as was noted on Mike Duffy and the Mansbridge political panel.

Just imagine a role reversal, if the Liberals were in power and they had an incompetant minister like Bernier around causing problems and it potentially cost them the next election, I'm pretty sure you'd be wanting the PM to be running a tight ship.

[jdobbin]

Just imagine a role reversal, if the Liberals were in power and they had an incompetant minister like Bernier around causing problems and it potentially cost them the next election, I'm pretty sure you'd be wanting the PM to be running a tight ship.

I'd want them out of cabinet.

I strongly believe in cabinet ministers being able to stand up in the House and answer questions, run their departments, promote and develop policies and not have to run to the PMO and ask if they can go to the bathroom.

[Bryan]

I strongly believe in cabinet ministers being able to stand up in the House and answer questions, run their departments, promote and develop policies and not have to run to the PMO and ask if they can go to the bathroom.

Do you actually watch question period, or just read the recap from the official Liberal newsletter? I see CPC cabinet ministers getting up and answering direct questions all the time. They are far less evasive than Liberal ministers typically have been. Not having the PMO in tighter control of what individual departments are doing is why the Liberals ended up out on their ear.

[jbg]

Do you actually watch question period, or just read the recap from the official Liberal newsletter? I see CPC cabinet ministers getting up and answering direct questions all the time. They are far less evasive than Liberal ministers typically have been. Not having the PMO in tighter control of what individual departments are doing is why the Liberals ended up out on their ear.

Sponsorship perhaps?

Either Chretien and Martin knew and were responsible, or didn't know and were irresponsible.

[jdobbin]

Do you actually watch question period, or just read the recap from the official Liberal newsletter? I see CPC cabinet ministers getting up and answering direct questions all the time. They are far less evasive than Liberal ministers typically have been. Not having the PMO in tighter control of what individual departments are doing is why the Liberals ended up out on their ear.

In have watched and we see Peter Van Loan stand up for every question in some sessions.

As for your claims that they are less evasive, that is just your opinion. They certainly are a lot more abrasive.

[peter_puck]

I agree with jbg, this has been a remarkably competent government - when compared with some others.

It is also about the most secretive. So far they seem to be doing okay, but one wonders what will come to the surface.

What strikes me in this shuffle is the irony of two of the three big moves. Fortier is a senator never elected to anything and brough into the cabinet through the back door shortly after the election. Emerson was never elected as a Conservative and crossed the floor into cabinet immediately after his election as a Liberal.

I really don't have a problem with Fortier, I do with Emerson though. The regional makeup of his party has forced Harper to compremise on ethics(Emerson) and talent(Bernier). He should either ignore regional issues, or take on more unelected cabinet ministers. There is lots of talented western MP's and lots of unelected talent, but very little to pick through in Quebec (because of the number of seats).

[jbg]

There is lots of talented western MP's and lots of unelected talent, but very little to pick through in Quebec (because of the number of seats).

I agree.

I see nothing wrong with staffing a Cabinet with the best people a country has to offer. Your country, unlike mine, restricts Cabinet membership to MP's of the governing party. In the US a Senator or Congressman cannot sit in the Cabinet. All told, I think Harper, by selecting Emerson, adopted an admirable feature of the United States system. I'm not sure that a Bloc-head would have been so amenable to crossing lines in order to join the Cabinet though.

[Topaz]

Do you think Emerson would be on Ottawa if he ran as a Conservative?? I don't think he could and I think the Cons thought the same thing and cook up a deal for him to run as a Liberal and then cross the floor as he did so very fast.

[capricorn]

I think the Cons thought the same thing and cook up a deal for him to run as a Liberal and then cross the floor as he did so very fast.

By your logic, this would mean that Emerson duped his Liberal riding association and his local supporters from the time he was nominated until after the election when he crossed over. Or, are you saying that maybe all of these people were in on the scam? Perhaps you have Cadman on the brain. You know, a bribery-type scenario.

[peter_puck]

I agree.

I see nothing wrong with staffing a Cabinet with the best people a country has to offer. Your country, unlike mine, restricts Cabinet membership to MP's of the governing party. In the US a Senator or Congressman cannot sit in the Cabinet. All told, I think Harper, by selecting Emerson, adopted an admirable feature of the United States system. I'm not sure that a Bloc-head would have been so amenable to crossing lines in order to join the Cabinet though.

I think in a way he is actually emulating the US. While he has cabinet ministers, they are not as powerful as they were under previous governments. Both the Liberals and the prior Conservative government had very heavy weight ministers. Harper seems to concentrate power in his office, creating something like the US executive branch.

I really disagree with you over Emerson though. He never "crossed the floor", he switched parties right after the election - which in my view is immoral. Especially after the Conservatives chastised the Liberals over Stronach.

Stronach at least had an excuse. She ran as "red Tory" but the party turned away from "red Tory" values. She said she followed the will of her constituents (and she was reelected). Same with Garth Turner (he offered to resign) or Scott Brison (who was reelected). Each of them could claim that the party was moving away the views that got them elected.

Emerson, on the other hand, changed sides the next day. The only possible reason was a lust for power. I think it was a huge ethical compromise when Harper brought him into cabinet, especially after asking for an investigation when Stronach moved in much more gray circumstances.

[gc1765]

I really disagree with you over Emerson though. He never "crossed the floor", he switched parties right after the election - which in my view is immoral. Especially after the Conservatives chastised the Liberals over Stronach.

Stronach at least had an excuse. She ran as "red Tory" but the party turned away from "red Tory" values. She said she followed the will of her constituents (and she was reelected). Same with Garth Turner (he offered to resign) or Scott Brison (who was reelected). Each of them could claim that the party was moving away the views that got them elected.

Good point. I don't think what Stronach or Turner did was OK (Stronach because she crossed to a cabinet post instead of as a backbencher and Turner because he was so adamant that Emerson run in a by-election, but decided not to do so himself)...but I think what Emerson did was worse.