Flurry of patronage postings

[Argus]

Every one of your posts reeks of denial and apology.

Sorry, but unlike some people here, I'm not a party hack. I'm not taking directions from the party in what to post here.

Harper said that he would put patronage under scrutiny. Is this not a broken promise?

Seems to me he tried to do that and your party said no, that it needed to be able to reward people for doing under the table services for the liberal party.

More evidence of just how much your lying party is trying to do exactly what they criticized the Liberals for.

When he starts selling appointments for cash money you come back to us and I'll agree.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Argus

[Argus]

Hard to call for reform when all you so is the same thing you criticize others for.

You've already admitted that every single appointment your party made was political patronage. Only a few of the ones the Tories have made can be so described. That sounds like a huge improvement to me.

That you're trotting it out and complaining about it just shows how wildly out of touch with reality your postings continue to be in their zealous pursuit of anti-tory propaganda.

[Argus]

Just as the Tories did for years of the Liberal's daycare promise even when they don't believe in daycare.

Well, now the Tories have a record in government the excuse for not doing things keeps going back to the whine that the Opposition keeps preventing those promises for happening. It is a little hard to reckon when Dion was pushed around as the Tories won repeated confidence measures.

There is a difference between being a shaky minority government, as Harper has had, and the absolute power that the Liberals owned for 13 years with big majorities and a fractured opposition. Not only that, but for most of those years the Liberals also enjoyed a booming economy and big budgetary surpluses.

And they did NOTHING with that time. Year after year they ignored their promises, including the ones about daycare, health care and social services, content to fill their pockets with cash and reward their campaign contributers.

[Molly]

Dunno about that, Argus.

One says: I do X. The other says: I am fully committed to Y. X is reprehensible, EVIL, and I'll do everything in my power to expunge it from the face of the earth!-- and so you select that one.

They go through crude motions- some posturings, maybe a non-binding letter of intent, or a crude caricature of Y, or even some over-the-top proposal of Y to the rediculous extreme.....but at the first sign of resistance, or even minor criticizm, or inconvenience, throw up their hands, abandon Y completely, and do XXXXX. Then defend that action by claiming that the other guy made them do it, and besides, since the other guy does X, then XXXXX is perfectly within the rules, completely justified, the only possible course, and what's it to you? (You evil X-doer, you.)

Over and over, issue after issue. It gets painful to watch after a while.

[Leafless]

Quoted from jdobbin's article:

"One way to change Canada is to destroy the institutions created by your enemies," said Stephen Clarkson, a prominent author and University of Toronto political scientist.

"You transform them by putting your people in to turn a Liberal institution into a Conservative institution, or maybe even drive it into the ground."

This is exactly what the (French Quebec) federal Liberals did to Canadian society.

[Shakeyhands]

There is a difference between being a shaky minority government, as Harper has had,

Sure, since December, This is just a funny comment Argus, thanks for the chuckle....

[Argus]

Sure, since December, This is just a funny comment Argus, thanks for the chuckle....

Harper has never enjoyed anything BUT a shaky minority government. That you think this has only been the case since December says nothing good about your understanding or even familiarity with politics.

[Argus]

Dunno about that, Argus.

One says: I do X. The other says: I am fully committed to Y. X is reprehensible, EVIL, and I'll do everything in my power to expunge it from the face of the earth!-- and so you select that one.

They go through crude motions- some posturings, maybe a non-binding letter of intent, or a crude caricature of Y, or even some over-the-top proposal of Y to the rediculous extreme.....but at the first sign of resistance, or even minor criticizm, or inconvenience, throw up their hands, abandon Y completely, and do XXXXX. Then defend that action by claiming that the other guy made them do it, and besides, since the other guy does X, then XXXXX is perfectly within the rules, completely justified, the only possible course, and what's it to you? (You evil X-doer, you.)

Over and over, issue after issue. It gets painful to watch after a while.

The Tories have come up short on most issues, so far as I'm concerned. But I have yet to find one where they come up as short as the Liberals. As I have said previously, I'm not a big fan of Harper, but there really isn't any alternative on the horizon which seems likely to improve anything.

[jdobbin]

You've already admitted that every single appointment your party made was political patronage. Only a few of the ones the Tories have made can be so described. That sounds like a huge improvement to me.

Baloney. All appointments made by any prime minister are patronage no matter how qualified the person is.

That you're trotting it out and complaining about it just shows how wildly out of touch with reality your postings continue to be in their zealous pursuit of anti-tory propaganda.

I think you are a little out of touch about what I am saying which is that Harper promised to do things differently on appointments. He hasn't. You think that only a few patronage appointments have been made but they all are. Every single one of them. It is built into our system.

Harper was uncomfortable with the whole process of making appointments and said he would do thing differently.

I don't have a problem with the process aside from a few tweaks. I only have problems with some of the people appointed whether they are Liberals, Conservatives or whatever. If they are too blatantly being awarded for loyalty and have no aptitude for the position, it doesn't serve the government well. Still, some of the appointments have a political angle that can't be denied and are awarded as such. The Tories wouldn't appoint anyone not interested in breaking up the Wheat Board. Ever.

The denial and apology for Harper doing what he accused the Liberals of doing is propaganda for the Tory side.

[jdobbin]

Sorry, but unlike some people here, I'm not a party hack. I'm not taking directions from the party in what to post here.

Ah, the accusations again.

Your posts still reek of apology and denial.

Seems to me he tried to do that and your party said no, that it needed to be able to reward people for doing under the table services for the liberal party.

There was no no. There wasn't even a vote.

Your leader wasn't really interested in doing it to begin with.

When he starts selling appointments for cash money you come back to us and I'll agree.

No, he makes an appointments so that he can act illegally such as with the Wheat Board.

[jdobbin]

There is a difference between being a shaky minority government, as Harper has had, and the absolute power that the Liberals owned for 13 years with big majorities and a fractured opposition. Not only that, but for most of those years the Liberals also enjoyed a booming economy and big budgetary surpluses.

Please. Shaky minority? It was Harper who had to call the election just as I predicted when I first posted in 2006.

Harper had two incredibly booming years for the economy and never came close to losing a confidence vote.

And they did NOTHING with that time. Year after year they ignored their promises, including the ones about daycare, health care and social services, content to fill their pockets with cash and reward their campaign contributers.

Nothing huh? Seems to remember a daycare program in 2005 and money restored to health and social services prior to Harper getting into power.

[Who's Doing What?]

Harper has never enjoyed anything BUT a shaky minority government. That you think this has only been the case since December says nothing good about your understanding or even familiarity with politics.

Poor bugger couldn't get a 1 seat majority with a useless clueless bum as his major political rival. How freaking sad is that?

[g_bambino]

Poor bugger couldn't get a 1 seat majority with a useless clueless bum as his major political rival. How freaking sad is that?

I don't think we should discount that pervasive "natural ruling party of Canada" myth that's been attached to the Liberals. I probably wouldn't be surprised at the number of Liberal voters who didn't even know who the party leader was, recognising only the Liberal logo instead.

[Moonbox]

There was no no. There wasn't even a vote.

Your leader wasn't really interested in doing it to begin with.

Once again Jdobbin is telling us what Stephen Harper thinks and what he's planning to do next. We're all still waiting for that Spring Election you were guaranteeing Harper was going to call BTW.

I guess my point is that more often than not you have no idea what you're talking about and just say whatever you think you can score points on...

It doesn't matter to you that reforms on patronage were not possible given the minority government. All that matters is that you've found something you think makes Harper look bad. Too bad it doesn't look nearly as bad when someone looks at it 'intelligently'.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

Once again Jdobbin is telling us what Stephen Harper thinks and what he's planning to do next. We're all still waiting for that Spring Election you were guaranteeing Harper was going to call BTW.

I think we can safely say that Harper wasn't interesting in putting forward a new name, reaching out to the Opposition or initiating the whole process over again.

As for the spring election, you keep forgetting I said it would have been against Dion but first Harper wanted to cripple the Opposition and avoid putting himself in the firing line over the economy.

I guess my point is that more often than not you have no idea what you're talking about and just say whatever you think you can score points on...

And you have no idea what I was talking about since I have indicated that the Opposition did not even have a chance to vote no on the whole thing. Harper withdrew is initiative and never started it up again.

It doesn't matter to you that reforms on patronage were not possible given the minority government. All that matters is that you've found something you think makes Harper look bad. Too bad it doesn't look nearly as bad when someone looks at it 'intelligently'.

You mean partisanly in your case. The reforms were possibly if Harper wished to put them to a vote, work with the Opposition or re-introduce the process at a later time. He did none of those things. Nor did he make it an issue in the last election in any meaningful way.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would suggest that Harper is busy trying to find out which way the wind is blowing. The appointments could be a point of contention if Iggy had the brains to exploit them. However in order to do that he would need a viable alternative to bring to the table. The truth is that we have an incredibly huge bureaucracy which needs daily attention. People come and go from these jobs everyday for one reason or another. The right move is to restructure the civil service and integrate it with government operations, but that would take great effort and require detailed planning. This is something that I am not convinced any of the current partisan leaders have the stomach for.

The problem is patronage, paying off the supporters of the victors and doling out the spoils. This has been a problem since the beginning of politics, and it is not going to disappear overnight. I say that the government would do well to restructure itself and eliminate a lot of positions while providing accountability to the electorate.

[Argus]

Baloney. All appointments made by any prime minister are patronage no matter how qualified the person is.

No, the appointments are patronage when they're appointed because they're supporters of your party - which is what you guys did and will do again.

Harper makes a slew of appointments and the determined press can only vaguely connect a small percentage of them to the Tory party. Sounds like a pretty hefty improvement over your lot!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No, the appointments are patronage when they're appointed because they're supporters of your party - which is what you guys did and will do again.

Harper makes a slew of appointments and the determined press can only vaguely connect a small percentage of them to the Tory party. Sounds like a pretty hefty improvement over your lot!

You need to be less partisan and admit that the entire process does not serve the best interests of citizens.

[Moonbox]

You need to be less partisan and admit that the entire process does not serve the best interests of citizens.

Bingo

[jdobbin]

No, the appointments are patronage when they're appointed because they're supporters of your party - which is what you guys did and will do again.

Sorry. They are patronage no matter what. Doesn't matter if they are supporters or not. It matters that the PM makes the selection.

Harper makes a slew of appointments and the determined press can only vaguely connect a small percentage of them to the Tory party. Sounds like a pretty hefty improvement over your lot!

An improvement is not what Harper promised. He promised wholesale change in how it was done and scrutinty. He claims the Opposition blocked him but where was the vote? Where was the initiative to see this through? And why wasn't it campaigned on this past election?

[Moonbox]

I think we can safely say that Harper wasn't interesting in putting forward a new name, reaching out to the Opposition or initiating the whole process over again.

All we can safely say is that it certainly wasn't a priority of his in the minority government. Given how imminent his defeat is getting, I think he's trying to even out the senate and the bureaucracy as much as possible before the Libs get their hands on them again. It's VERY understandable.

As for the spring election, you keep forgetting I said it would have been against Dion but first Harper wanted to cripple the Opposition and avoid putting himself in the firing line over the economy.

No. You said Harper was going to call another election before spring. Don't try to weasel your way out of it. There was no qualification that it had to be against Dion, explicit or implied. We discussed this at length.

You mean partisanly in your case. The reforms were possibly if Harper wished to put them to a vote, work with the Opposition or re-introduce the process at a later time. He did none of those things. Nor did he make it an issue in the last election in any meaningful way.

The reforms, ESPECIALLY Senate reforms, would have been EXTREMELY difficult to put forward. They bordered on Constitutional Reform. It would be impossible in a minority. Again though, it's not like you care. You don't even want the reforms. You just want to whine and b**** about anything and everything you can when it comes to Harper.

[jdobbin]

All we can safely say is that it certainly wasn't a priority of his in the minority government. Given how imminent his defeat is getting, I think he's trying to even out the senate and the bureaucracy as much as possible before the Libs get their hands on them again. It's VERY understandable.

For a partisan, yes.

For people who voted for Harper believing he was going to end these practices, it is a betrayal/

No. You said Harper was going to call another election before spring. Don't try to weasel your way out of it. There was no qualification that it had to be against Dion, explicit or implied. We discussed this at length.

No, don't you try to weasel out of what I said. I said he was going to force an election or call one himself to face Dion. Anything else you say on this subject is a lie. I said nothing about a spring election about Ignatieff or any other new leader. I said an election before May just to make sure he didn't face a new leader.

The reforms, ESPECIALLY Senate reforms, would have been EXTREMELY difficult to put forward. They bordered on Constitutional Reform. It would be impossible in a minority. Again though, it's not like you care. You don't even want the reforms. You just want to whine and b**** about anything and everything you can when it comes to Harper.

I have no doubt Senate reforms were impossible. I said so. I said here that the provinces would challenge it in the courts and Harper would lose.

His other reforms did not require a constitutional hearing. Harper simply abandoned them and didn't even really campaign for them in the last election.

Although it's not like you care, you just want to point out that Harper can't do anything until he gets a majority and there are reasons why he acts like the Liberals he criticized for years.

[Molly]

I get a kick out of that claim... can't do anything 'til he gets a majority.

Whoever would have thought that Stephane Dion was so powerful... powerful enough to MAKE those Conservatives break every promise they've ever made, and to govern from the opposition benches. And Ignatief? Must be some sort of superman!

[Keepitsimple]

Dobbin - meet Molly....you two are a match made in heaven.

[cybercoma]

One thing I don't see a lot of people offering is suggestions as to how the PM can make appointments without them appearing to be patronage. Regardless of who is doing the appointing, they're going to select the candidates they feel best fit the position. The only way to eliminate this atmosphere of patronage is to take away the PM's authority for appointments. A non-partisan committee would then have to be formed to make the appointments, which could still lead to political wrangling. An unspoken coalition of NDP, Liberal and Bloc MPs on the committee could force through appointments that would make the PM and sitting government's job nearly impossible to accomplish.