jdobbin Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 The Harper government continues to have problems with staffing their offices. Various reasons have been given but the lack of skilled staff affects ministers and caucus offices. The Hill Times is reporting on how staffers and former MPs are treated and touching on the issue of patronage. http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?...icized/&c=2 Prime Minister Stephen Harper demands loyalty from his caucus and staffers, but doesn't show the same loyalty when Conservative MPs lose an election or staffers leave their Parliament Hill jobs and some are disappointed that he has failed to "take care" of them in their post-Parliamentary lives, say some Conservatives."I don't think the Harper government has a strong reputation of taking care of its political staff or [former] MPs. In order to get loyalty, you need to give loyalty as well and I think there's a certain perception that political staff in the Harper government are expendable and once you've served your purpose, you're on your own," one top Conservative told The Hill Times. The conclusion of some the Tories interviewed for the article says that Harper's stand on political appointments means he excludes qualified Tories if they were MPs or staffers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 The Harper government continues to have problems with staffing their offices. Various reasons have been given but the lack of skilled staff affects ministers and caucus offices. The Hill Times is reporting on how staffers and former MPs are treated and touching on the issue of patronage. http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?...icized/&c=2 The conclusion of some the Tories interviewed for the article says that Harper's stand on political appointments means he excludes qualified Tories if they were MPs or staffers. To me this sounds like the antithesis of patronage appointments, you lost you job too bad, I'm not just going to make another up in the public sector for you to fill, because you were an MP or tory staffer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 To me this sounds like the antithesis of patronage appointments, you lost you job too bad, I'm not just going to make another up in the public sector for you to fill, because you were an MP or tory staffer. But the party will......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 But the party will......... There was nothing in the artical that said the party would do anything of the sort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 22, 2009 Report Share Posted June 22, 2009 There was nothing in the artical that said the party would do anything of the sort. That is simply reality sinking in. Even if the party leader does not hand over some favours, the party will still do what it can for its fallen heros. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 To me this sounds like the antithesis of patronage appointments, you lost you job too bad, I'm not just going to make another up in the public sector for you to fill, because you were an MP or tory staffer. I think the gist of the article is that these people won't get jobs no matter how qualified they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Need more serious people on staff at the PMs office...people who think everything is sexy...sexy human rights issues - sexy trade with China - sexy bailouts - sexy scandals with biker chicks - Harper may have not gotten the message...that you have to have mature well rounded people of good character and above all - those aware of the horrors that can be the human condition if not managed properly --- Harper might just be a light weight in the long run - I would have fired the isotope ladies fat ass...it was a mistake not to dislodge the leech, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 I think the gist of the article is that these people won't get jobs no matter how qualified they are. Then you should have titled this topic "Not using Patronage hurting Harper" but I suppose you felt that might be giving him credit in some eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 23, 2009 Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 Then you should have titled this topic "Not using Patronage hurting Harper" but I suppose you felt that might be giving him credit in some eyes. Jobs should only be given to the qualified. Not to those that who's qualifications consist of SEXY ---NO --- I will not let that one rest ever! Harper might think that being sexy is a qualification - if he does find sexy an exceptable expressional term..then he just might be shallow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) Then you should have titled this topic "Not using Patronage hurting Harper" but I suppose you felt that might be giving him credit in some eyes. I believe that was the gist of my entire post. It hurts Harper because they are having a hard time attracting good staff because it limits those staffers from taking jobs in government afterward and keeps them from working a lobbyists. Edited June 23, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.