Trudeau's cabinet shuffle

[I am Groot]

In case anyone new was wondering why there is no topic on Trudeau's ginormous cabinet shuffle - it's because nobody cares. Because it doesn't matter. Because none of his ministers have any power and they don't matter in deciding or implementing government policy. Their purpose is to serve as community representatives from whomever they're chosen o represent, and be mouthpieces for the policies developed by the PMO and passed over their heads to their deputy ministers - who are selected by the PMO. 

Kinsella said it right.

With the exception of weirdos like media political columnists and Ottawa-based bureaucrats, Joe and Jane Frontporch generally don’t know who is in cabinet, and they mostly don’t care, either.

Apart from Chrystia Freeland and Dominic LeBlanc — perhaps — most voters couldn’t pick a Trudeau government minister out of a police lineup (where not a few voters think they belong, but that’s a column for another day). The majority of Trudeau’s ministers are distinguished by being indistinguishable. They are remarkably unremarkable.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/07/07/el-nino-is-back-heres-what-it-means-for-extreme-weather

 

Or Coyne

What does the appointment of Mark Holland as Minister of Health mean to anyone but Mr. Holland? What changes in policy would Pascale St-Onge make at Heritage? How would Randy Boissonnault do things differently from his predecessor at Employment, or Kamal Khera at Diversity and Inclusion?

There is no point even trying to answer these questions, because for the most part it does not matter. It does not matter which minister occupies which portfolio. Outside of the top dozen or so, the portfolios themselves do not matter.

They are made-up jobs for make-work purposes. The point is not to fulfill some urgent public responsibility but to give their recipients something to do, for which the requisite qualification is neither their views nor their experience, but their membership in whatever region or demographic group the government is most anxious to court.

 

https://archive.li/b3vku

[August1991]

I looked at the names.

All things considered, someone else designed this for re-election.

====

Years ago, I reckoned that Trudeau Jnr (like RFK Jnr) had enough of fame.

I wuz wrong. 

[Dougie93]

elite aspirant overproduction downfall of Western Civilization, Canada edition

[Nefarious Banana]

Yeah but, but, but  . . . . .  what about Jagmeet ?

[Queenmandy85]

In the past, when a Dane went a Viking, he had to convince his crew the enterprise would be worth while. When a political leader puts a team together, he needs to be able to hold out the prospect they will have some impact. If he treats them like sheep, the flock will drift away.

[SpankyMcFarland]

The concentration of power in the hands of unelected minions of the PM is a trend neither recent nor confined to Canada. It’s one of the flaws of the British system in the media age that no country has managed to fix yet. However, the shuffle does tell us something about what issues the government considers important - the economy and housing, no surprises there in an election run-up - and who are the rising stars. I’d say Fraser and Anand.
 

 

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

I looked at the names.

All things considered, someone else designed this for re-election.

====

Years ago, I reckoned that Trudeau Jnr (like RFK Jnr) had enough of fame.

I wuz wrong. 

Well, for all his faults JT is not deranged. Unlike the other guy. 

[August1991]

3 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The concentration of power in the hands of unelected minions of the PM is a trend neither recent nor confined to Canada. It’s one of the flaws of the British system in the media age that no country has managed to fix yet. However, the shuffle does tell us something about what issues the government considers important - the economy and housing, no surprises there in an election run-up - and who are the rising stars. I’d say Fraser and Anand.
 

 

Well, for all his faults JT is not deranged. Unlike the other guy. 

In Canada, we live under a dictatorship - with a few checks.

True, the federal PM is a dictator.

Except - a federal PM without caucus support (eg. Thatcher) is like a US President without Congressional support (eg. Nixon).

====

And then there is the Supreme Court and the provincial premiers. (In Canada, this is now a weak defense.)

In the past, religion was a good defense.

Pierre Trudeau added our Charter to restrict the federal government 

Now, it is language.

 

 

 

 

[August1991]

In October 1970, the federal NDP opposed the War Measures Act.

https://greatcanadianspeeches.ca/2020/10/14/tommy-douglas-october-crisis-1970/

 

The current federal NDP had a different view of federal State power:

https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/jagmeet-singhs-support-for-emergencies-act-shows-hes-no-tommy-douglas-stuart-parker-for-inside-policy/

 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

In Canada, we live under a dictatorship - with a few checks.

True, the federal PM is a dictator.

Except - a federal PM without caucus support (eg. Thatcher) is like a US President without Congressional support (eg. Nixon).

====

And then there is the Supreme Court and the provincial premiers. (In Canada, this is now a weak defense.)

In the past, religion was a good defense.

Pierre Trudeau added our Charter to restrict the federal government 

Now, it is language.

Yes. I would just like to see additional checks on prime ministerial power from ministers and MPs. Let’s improve our system. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[August1991]

Just now, SpankyMcFarland said:

Yes. I would just like to see additional checks on prime ministerial power from ministers and MPs. 

In the UK, sitting MPs of the governing/majority party are free to speak.

In our federal parliament, only some votes provoke a test of confidence.

=====

How we restrict power/control is not a simple question. I like Trudeau Snr's idea: create counter-weights.

Our federal Charter of Rights is not perfect but - like unions - it made the Supreme Court another counter-weight.

[herbie]

Dictatorship my ass! What a gaggle of political ignoroids.

In one sentence you recognize he's scrambling to save his own ass, the next claim that makes him a dictator. Grow up!

[SpankyMcFarland]

15 minutes ago, August1991 said:

In the UK, sitting MPs of the governing/majority party are free to speak.

In our federal parliament, only some votes provoke a test of confidence.

=====

How we restrict power/control is not a simple question. I like Trudeau Snr's idea: create counter-weights.

Our federal Charter of Rights is not perfect but - like unions - it made the Supreme Court another counter-weight.

They are a minimum and not nearly enough. The Cabinet and cross-party committees should not be rubber stamps for the ruling party leader - there’s an obvious authoritarian tinge to that. PT’s charisma marked a turning point in this problem and not in a good way. As the creator of modern Canada, he did great work for the rule of law outside parliament but I don’t think he strengthened the voices of individual MPs within it. These days they are mostly a waste of space between elections. 
 

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[August1991]

8 minutes ago, herbie said:

Dictatorship my ass! What a gaggle of political ignoroids.

In one sentence you recognize he's scrambling to save his own ass, the next claim that makes him a dictator. Grow up!

In the parliamentary system. the prime minister is a dictator - restricted by the popular vote of parliament.

Canada is a federal state. Our federal PM is restricted - in theory - by the Supreme Court but ultimately by language.

[August1991]

14 minutes ago, herbie said:

Dictatorship my ass! What a gaggle of political ignoroids.

In one sentence you recognize he's scrambling to save his own ass, the next claim that makes him a dictator. Grow up!

Trudeau Jnr needs the seats of urban Ontario and Quebec; the anglo NDP will provide the rest.

Look at the cabinet; Butts has done the numbers.

[I am Groot]

14 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The concentration of power in the hands of unelected minions of the PM is a trend neither recent nor confined to Canada. It’s one of the flaws of the British system in the media age that no country has managed to fix yet.

It is not remotely as bad in the UK, where there is a ton of internal sniping and even open criticism of party leaders by MPs. And how many times have there been internal putsches in Australian party politics that replaced leaders, even prime ministers? Such things are unthinkable here.

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

It is not remotely as bad in the UK, where there is a ton of internal sniping and even open criticism of party leaders by MPs. And how many times have there been internal putsches in Australian party politics that replaced leaders, even prime ministers? Such things are unthinkable here.

Absolutely!  Right Erin? Oh ... wait...      LOL

Joking aside you're pretty much right.

However - i'm afraid you and the media you quoted fail to understand the purpose of the shuffle.

The shuffle isn't about putting more qualified people into positions. That's not its purpose. Few of those people are actually qualified to be experts in the ministries theyr'e taking over.

The reason for the shuffle is two fold.  1) - it doesn't matter who gets switched where, doing it at all gives the impression that the government is 'fine tuning' things and now things will run better.  Its like if  your mechanic were to say "i've adjusted your carb", you don't care what screwdriver he used or what specifically he adjusted, you just think "Oh good - it's been adjusted, it'll run better now,
 

And secondly it's about having a new SPOKESPERSON.  He doesn't want people who will DO better, he wants people who can SELL better.  "Hi, i'm Troy McLiberal, you might know me from such great cabinet positions as domestic trade, minister of justice and the inflation/deflation committee!  I'd like to talk to you today about Health Care. Don't kid yourself, if a doctor ever got the chance he'd eat you and everyone you care about".

 

So  now that they're shuffled the media will go to each of them and they can say 'forget the problems of the past, it's a new day with me in charge' and give people the sense that the sins of the past have been erased.

It's about the optics, not the competence.

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

It is not remotely as bad in the UK, where there is a ton of internal sniping and even open criticism of party leaders by MPs. And how many times have there been internal putsches in Australian party politics that replaced leaders, even prime ministers? Such things are unthinkable here.

I would regard that as a separate issue. We had a fair bit of it in the past before Harper in both parties. Few successful British PMs were tossed overboard before Brexit screwed everything up. Blair had done a long stint, perhaps longer than he had promised to do, before Brown replaced him.
 

What I am talking about is the real command structure in the country where many key decisions are no longer taken by Cabinet. The British have similar concerns. My basic point is that these changes were not started in Canada by Justin Trudeau.

Australia is a special case in recent years - although recall the long rule of John Howard. The intraparty feuding has become counter-productive. It’s also easier to remove a prime minister there than in Canada. 
 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[August1991]

On 7/28/2023 at 1:23 PM, I am Groot said:

It is not remotely as bad in the UK, where there is a ton of internal sniping and even open criticism of party leaders by MPs. And how many times have there been internal putsches in Australian party politics that replaced leaders, even prime ministers? Such things are unthinkable here.

You guys in NZ, Aus, UK have no idea what is about to happen.

In Canada, this election system still works.

====

In the American system, a citizen must choose among many. many candidates for various positions. (The ballot is a broad paper.)

In the British system. a voter delegates a person to decide these decisons 

Edited July 30, 2023 by August1991

[Moonbox]

On 7/28/2023 at 12:29 AM, August1991 said:

In the parliamentary system. the prime minister is a dictator - restricted by the popular vote of parliament.

The popular vote of parliament makes it a democracy, goof.

On 7/28/2023 at 12:29 AM, August1991 said:

Canada is a federal state. Our federal PM is restricted - in theory - by the Supreme Court but ultimately by language.

and by the popular vote of parliament…which is elected by the popular vote of the people.  Woof.  

[ExFlyer]

On 7/28/2023 at 2:02 PM, CdnFox said:

Absolutely!  Right Erin? Oh ... wait...      LOL

Joking aside you're pretty much right.

However - i'm afraid you and the media you quoted fail to understand the purpose of the shuffle.

The shuffle isn't about putting more qualified people into positions. That's not its purpose. Few of those people are actually qualified to be experts in the ministries theyr'e taking over.

The reason for the shuffle is two fold.  1) - it doesn't matter who gets switched where, doing it at all gives the impression that the government is 'fine tuning' things and now things will run better.  Its like if  your mechanic were to say "i've adjusted your carb", you don't care what screwdriver he used or what specifically he adjusted, you just think "Oh good - it's been adjusted, it'll run better now,
 

And secondly it's about having a new SPOKESPERSON.  He doesn't want people who will DO better, he wants people who can SELL better.  "Hi, i'm Troy McLiberal, you might know me from such great cabinet positions as domestic trade, minister of justice and the inflation/deflation committee!  I'd like to talk to you today about Health Care. Don't kid yourself, if a doctor ever got the chance he'd eat you and everyone you care about".

 

So  now that they're shuffled the media will go to each of them and they can say 'forget the problems of the past, it's a new day with me in charge' and give people the sense that the sins of the past have been erased.

It's about the optics, not the competence.

Most of those shuffled out are going to "retire". They did their time for life long pension.

I suspect some of the new ones will lose in the elections will also get a pension, but as a minister, not a peon.

This whole charade is only to reward the faithful

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Most of those shuffled out are going to "retire". They did their time for life long pension.

I suspect some of the new ones will lose in the elections will also get a pension, but as a minister, not a peon.

This whole charade is only to reward the faithful

Well that's true too. 

But on top of those leaving he basically moved EVERYONE around like some sort of ministerial shell game.  In the middle of summer.

I wonder if this is as much to distract those in his party who wish he'd step down?

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's true too. 

But on top of those leaving he basically moved EVERYONE around like some sort of ministerial shell game.  In the middle of summer.

I wonder if this is as much to distract those in his party who wish he'd step down?

Bottom line is ministers, deputy ministers etc pensions are much higher than MP's pension so, why not share the wealth amongst the followers?.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Bottom line is ministers, deputy ministers etc pensions are much higher than MP's pension so, why not share the wealth amongst the followers?.

Well that would explain why he's got 40 of them

[August1991]

11 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The popular vote of parliament makes it a democracy, goof.

and by the popular vote of parliament…which is elected by the popular vote of tphe people.  Woof.  

Our federal House of Commons has some 300 people.

The popular vote of these people determines our federal Prime Minister.

This is what I meant.

====

But this federal Prime Minister is restricted by our provincial prime ministers (depending on our federal Supreme Court).

But ultimately, this Canadian federal Prime Minister dictator is restricted by religion and language.

This was my point.

Edited August 3, 2023 by August1991

[Army Guy]

54 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Our federal House of Commons has some 300 people.

The popular vote of these people determines our federal Prime Minister.

This is what I meant.

====

But this federal Prime Minister is restricted by our provincial prime ministers (depending on our federal Supreme Court).

But ultimately, this Canadian federal Prime Minister dictator is restricted by religion and language.

This was my point.

You took the red pill again didn't you....