Harper's 2008 Cabinet

[Sir Bandelot]

MY BIG FAT BLOATED CPC CABINET

I hear he also added a ministry of truth, and a ministry of peace...

[noahbody]

quote name='jdobbin' date='Nov 3 2008, 05:31 PM' post='357873']

Hardly the attitude to take for someone who has created a Democratic Reform ministry.

I'll point out that you seemed to agree with my (not Harper's) statement that committees accomplish nothing. Yet, one post before, you said you'd rather see more committees. Can you explain your thinking on this?

I'm not sure how my opinion, which apparently is the same as yours and might or not be Harper's opinion on committees has anything to do with creating a Democratic Reform ministry. I would say it's likely a foolish move for someone who has a hidden agenda.

[Smallc]

So you don't know anything about what they do, but it must be good.....

Do you happen to own a Montreal ad agency by any chance?

You don't know what they do, but it has to be a waste? It works both way you know.

[jdobbin]

I'll point out that you seemed to agree with my (not Harper's) statement that committees accomplish nothing. Yet, one post before, you said you'd rather see more committees. Can you explain your thinking on this?

I never said more committees. I said committees that were stronger in terms of oversight on processes and spending. Harper argued for those out of office.

Harper says committees don't accomplish anything and he has made sure they don't with his 200 page book on how to disrupt Parliament.

I'm not sure how my opinion, which apparently is the same as yours and might or not be Harper's opinion on committees has anything to do with creating a Democratic Reform ministry. I would say it's likely a foolish move for someone who has a hidden agenda.

I'd like to hear what Harper intends for this minister to do. In the past it was about the Senate and electoral reform. The rest was rather vague and Peter Van Loan probably didn't give it much through when Senate reform stalled and when a further strangulation of election financing was passed.

Do you have any idea what the new minister will be doing? Do you actually think it will be full-time work?

[noahbody]

Do you have any idea what the new minister will be doing? Do you actually think it will be full-time work?

No. Maybe we should wait and see before we start to criticize.

[jdobbin]

No. Maybe we should wait and see before we start to criticize.

Oh, I think I can criticize right now. I think the size of the cabinet is too large. I used to think the same thing about a lot of Liberal cabinets.

Large cabinets=larger budgets. Or do you disagree? Harper used to think a large cabinet was not a good thing.

[Mr.Canada]

Oh, I think I can criticize right now. I think the size of the cabinet is too large. I used to think the same thing about a lot of Liberal cabinets.

Large cabinets=larger budgets. Or do you disagree? Harper used to think a large cabinet was not a good thing.

If he get's it done all will be forgiven. I hope he has a plan and a reason for the bigger cabinet or I too will be opposed to it. We'll see soon enough.

[noahbody]

Oh, I think I can criticize right now. I think the size of the cabinet is too large.

My comment was directed to your criticisms of a specific cabinet post.

I used to think the same thing about a lot of Liberal cabinets.

How many threads did you start to debate this? Somewhere around zero?

Large cabinets=larger budgets. Or do you disagree?

Not necessarily.

Harper used to think a large cabinet was not a good thing.

He's really changing isn't he? Soon he'll be running for the Liberal leadership. Then all we'll hear from you is how great he is. I can't wait.

Edited November 4, 2008 by noahbody

[jdobbin]

My comment was directed to your criticisms of a specific cabinet post.

That's part and parcel of the large cabinet problem. I saw no reason why the position was calved off from Government House Leader.

How many threads did you start to debate this? Somewhere around zero?

I have mentioned it a few times in a number of threads since 2006. I agreed with Harper when he said large cabinets lead to more spending.

Not necessarily.

Many of these ministries are set up with the express purpose of dispersing money.

I agreed when Harper used to say in Opposition that so many cabinet posts was just so many mouths to feed.

He's really changing isn't he? Soon he'll be running for the Liberal leadership. Then all we'll hear from you is how great he is. I can't wait.

Any leader of any party who runs a deficit or looks to run a deficit loses my support. Doesn't make a difference to some Tory supporters, it seems.

[jdobbin]

And coming with a large cabinet is a large Parliamentary Secretary group.

Is there no one in the Conservative party who is not getting a post?

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/533264

Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday announced 27 parliamentary secretaries – some of them rookies, others veterans.

The job comes with a $15,600 a year salary increase (an MP earns $155,400 a year) and responsibility for keeping tabs on key files in committees, as well as standing in on days when a minister is absent from the Commons.

[Smallc]

And coming with a large cabinet is a large Parliamentary Secretary group.

Is there no one in the Conservative party who is not getting a post?

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/533264

I thought full ministers usually got a parliamentary secretary?

[bluegreen]

Any leader of any party who runs a deficit or looks to run a deficit loses my support. Doesn't make a difference to some Tory supporters, it seems.

Hmmm.

The Green Party of Canada constitution prohibits unsustainable finances. Which is to say, it is the only Party that is constitutionally bound to run a balanced budget. Does that mean the GPC can expect your' support ;-)

[jdobbin]

Hmmm.

The Green Party of Canada constitution prohibits unsustainable finances. Which is to say, it is the only Party that is constitutionally bound to run a balanced budget. Does that mean the GPC can expect your' support ;-)

It would help if they were in elected office... anywhere.

[jdobbin]

I thought full ministers usually got a parliamentary secretary?

And a minister of state it seems.

[bluegreen]

It would help if they were in elected office... anywhere.

By implication, you would rather support someone who will get elected, than someone who will do that which you consider most important.

[madmax]

It would help if they were in elected office... anywhere.

You are one to talk. You ran in a riding, and they got rid to it before the next election. Talk about putting fear into people.

Anyways. You can help the GP cause.

Here is the candidate in what might be your old riding.

Green Kristen Andrews 213 votes.

Edited November 9, 2008 by madmax

[bluegreen]

And coming with a large cabinet is a large Parliamentary Secretary group.

Is there no one in the Conservative party who is not getting a post?

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/533264

Well, isn't that what the spoils of office are about?

Politics as usual. This was what the destruction of the Progressive Conservatives was about. Taking power. None of that boring process of being idealistic, or doing what is right. Raise lots of money, massage a platform until it is pablum. Package, and push it. Do whatever it takes short of having to present any real ideas to the electorate. Ideas might be controversial, which might spoil things. Win first, then, we can all have funky titles, and 'our' people can be looked after.

[bluegreen]

I hear he also added a ministry of truth, and a ministry of peace...

Flaherty kept ministry of plenty.

And since Orwell is the muse of the day, it appears that some provinces are still a little more equal....

[jdobbin]

By implication, you would rather support someone who will get elected, than someone who will do that which you consider most important.

I didn't say that at all. I said it is difficult to see the promise borne out since I have never seen a Green party become government anywhere in Canada. The promise of no deficit is a lot harder than actually balancing a budget.

The Greens are looking for a breakthrough on the national front but many parties get their start on the local and provincial level and show the substance of what they are made of. If the Greens could have one big city mayor or the majority of councils some place and balance budgets, their promise of no deficit elsewhere in politics would resonate more.

Edited November 9, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

You are one to talk. You ran in a riding, and they got rid to it before the next election. Talk about putting fear into people.

Anyways. You can help the GP cause.

Here is the candidate in what might be your old riding.

Green Kristen Andrews 213 votes.

I have no idea what you are referring to.

I said it would help if the Greens had an elected government somewhere in Canada to give evidence of their ability not to get into deficit. I have seen evidence of NDP, Liberals, PC and Conservative governments who have balanced budgets but not a Green one yet.

[bluegreen]

I didn't say that at all. I said it is difficult to see the promise borne out since I have never seen a Green party become government anywhere in Canada. The promise of no deficit is a lot harder that actually balancing a budget.

The Greens are looking for a breakthrough on the national front but many parties get their start on the local and provincial level and show the substance of what they are made of. If the Greens could have one big city mayor or the majority of councils some place and balance budgets, their promise of no deficit elsewhere in politics would resonate more.

My apologies, yes, you are right. It has been a fair criticism of the GPC in the past that they can promise anything, because they've never yet had to deliver the goods. There are a lot of GPC members who sit on municipal councils here and there, but of course explicit party affiliations don't really exist at the municipal level in Ontario at least, except in a few instances.

I disagree though that it is hard to balance a budget. You spend less than you raise. You build cabinet consensus as to what is needful spending, and taxes. If that fails to meet your target, then it's time to step on some toes. You cannot compromise your principles though, just because it's uncomfortable. It's not much of a principle if it's so readily discarded eh?

[jdobbin]

My apologies, yes, you are right. It has been a fair criticism of the GPC in the past that they can promise anything, because they've never yet had to deliver the goods. There are a lot of GPC members who sit on municipal councils here and there, but of course explicit party affiliations don't really exist at the municipal level in Ontario at least, except in a few instances.

I think it is important that more of these elected Greens make their affiliation known if they are shown to be sound financial managers.

I disagree though that it is hard to balance a budget. You spend less than you raise. You build cabinet consensus as to what is needful spending, and taxes. If that fails to meet your target, then it's time to step on some toes. You cannot compromise your principles though, just because it's uncomfortable. It's not much of a principle if it's so readily discarded eh?

I'll never say it is easy. It is politics. But I think the mandate to balance budgets is now ingrained in Canadians at every level and in every party.

If the Greens are to make a breakthrough in a major way, they have to be shown to be superior managers of public money. Every other party has been able to show that but it has taken time and effort on the local, provincial and federal levels.

[bluegreen]

I think it is important that more of these elected Greens make their affiliation known if they are shown to be sound financial managers.

In Ontario, that would be political suicide to run under any party banner. It is a significant wedge, because there is a tradition of keeping party politics out of Municipal politics. Any politician who publicly acknowledged a party affiliation would make the front page, and lose about 20% or more of the electorate. For example, Mayor Miller in Toronto is pretty well known to have dipper affiliations, but he has to remain non-partisan. He also has quiet links to the Greens, but publicly he is, and must remain neutral.

Yes, it takes time to build a Party. I have to say though that the Greens were a debating club 6 years ago, with membership in the hundreds. Membership has grown HUGELY, although we're electorally challenged because it is very evenly distributed across the country. We'll go from 40 well organised EDA's, with good volunteer bases to 200+ for the (presumed) 2010 election. You won't find many Greens who expect to win any majorities in our lifespan. Most Greens have policy objectives, not a lust for power. I will bet you good money though that within ten years, a Canadian minority government will find it expedient to appoint one or two GPC ministers, more depending upon growth in electoral strength.

BTW, I doubt that we'll see any majority governments for a long time. The Greens will continue to win votes from all parties, including the CPC, and the splits will mitigate against majorities. That's deliberate, and effective, as you can see looking at the small print over the last three elections.

[jdobbin]

In Ontario, that would be political suicide to run under any party banner. It is a significant wedge, because there is a tradition of keeping party politics out of Municipal politics. Any politician who publicly acknowledged a party affiliation would make the front page, and lose about 20% or more of the electorate. For example, Mayor Miller in Toronto is pretty well known to have dipper affiliations, but he has to remain non-partisan. He also has quiet links to the Greens, but publicly he is, and must remain neutral.

One of the reason why voter turn out is so low on the municipal front is because there are no political parties set up to offer platforms to the electorate. Candidates run as free lancers in most places whatever their affiliations are.

The problem is that our constitution makes the municipalities the creature of the provinces. Most provinces want weak municipalities and leave the system in place because it suits them.

If Greens hope to break into provincial politics, their affiliations will have to be known. It can't be a double secret wink wink affiliation otherwise no one will know to associate the Greens with good governance in practice.

Yes, it takes time to build a Party. I have to say though that the Greens were a debating club 6 years ago, with membership in the hundreds. Membership has grown HUGELY, although we're electorally challenged because it is very evenly distributed across the country. We'll go from 40 well organised EDA's, with good volunteer bases to 200+ for the (presumed) 2010 election. You won't find many Greens who expect to win any majorities in our lifespan. Most Greens have policy objectives, not a lust for power. I will bet you good money though that within ten years, a Canadian minority government will find it expedient to appoint one or two GPC ministers, more depending upon growth in electoral strength.

In all the years of minorities in Canada, has the government ever appointed another party some ministers?

BTW, I doubt that we'll see any majority governments for a long time. The Greens will continue to win votes from all parties, including the CPC, and the splits will mitigate against majorities. That's deliberate, and effective, as you can see looking at the small print over the last three elections.

If the Tories can solve the issue of Quebec and the BQ, they would have a majorities for some time.

The parties in Opposition to Conservatives will then have to assess if they have to make changes to prevent Tory governments in perpetuity.

It should be mentioned that the NDP generally own has governments in provinces with only two major parties.

[bluegreen]

One of the reason why voter turn out is so low on the municipal front is because there are no political parties set up to offer platforms to the electorate. Candidates run as free lancers in most places whatever their affiliations are.

The problem is that our constitution makes the municipalities the creature of the provinces. Most provinces want weak municipalities and leave the system in place because it suits them.

If Greens hope to break into provincial politics, their affiliations will have to be known. It can't be a double secret wink wink affiliation otherwise no one will know to associate the Greens with good governance in practice.

In all the years of minorities in Canada, has the government ever appointed another party some ministers?

If the Tories can solve the issue of Quebec and the BQ, they would have a majorities for some time.

The parties in Opposition to Conservatives will then have to assess if they have to make changes to prevent Tory governments in perpetuity.

It should be mentioned that the NDP generally own has governments in provinces with only two major parties.

Very good! 100%! Municipalities should, as a matter of course have party associations. As it stands, the levels of corruption, incompetence, and self dealing at the municipal level are disgusting. Party discipline is badly needed. The Provinces, (at least Ontario) wants weak municipalities because it enhances their patronage powers.

Greens are 'wink wink' doing it as we speak, but a 4 year municipal electoral cycle makes evolutionary change slow. No mind, we're patient.

When you asked if any minority had ever appointed another parties ministers, it's generally called coalition government. In a land of perpetual minorities, it will have to become the norm. The Greens really are policy driven, and it will be hard NOT to turn to them if they form the balance, and are happy to work with anybody. I mentioned before that the GPC is made up of refugees from all the other parties. It makes for some truly eye opening interactons within the party. I have witnessed many negotiated compromises between button down collar types, and radicals at the barricades within the GPC to let old prejudices stand in the way. Damn, the GPC is good at the politics and strange bedfellows thing.