Carney says MPs are "just useful for votes"

[CdnFox]

 

 

 

HOT MIC: Carney says MPs are "just useful for votes"

 

This guy does not care about democracy, this guy does not care about Canada. Everything and everyone is just something to be used for his own purposes.

Edited 21 hours ago by CdnFox

[Legato]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

 

HOT MIC: Carney says MPs are "just useful for votes"

 

This guy does not care about democracy, this guy does not care about Canada. Everything and everyone is just something to be used for his own purposes.

 

[Barquentine]

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

HOT MIC: Carney says MPs are "just useful for votes"

Liar: he did not say "just useful", what's the rest of the conversation before that, context, joking conversation...?

There you go grasping at straws again. You are pathetic!

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Liar: he did not say "just useful", what's the rest of the conversation before that, context, joking conversation...?

There you go grasping at straws again. You are pathetic!

He literally does say they're just useful for votes. We do have MPS but umm uhh uaahha they're just useful for votes (laughs)

It's right there. So that would make you the liar in the room.

It's pathetic how far you'll go to try and defend the indefensible

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Unfortunately, it’s how the system has been heading for the last fifty years. How many PMs have worked to increase the power of MPs and parliamentary committees and cut the PMO down to size? It’s the same story in Britain and Ireland. The Malcolm Tuckers of the world matter more than backbenchers or even ministers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

37 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Unfortunately, it’s how the system has been heading for the last fifty years. How many PMs have worked to increase the power of MPs and parliamentary committees and cut the PMO down to size? It’s the same story in Britain and Ireland. The Malcolm Tuckers of the world matter more than backbenchers or even ministers. 

 

That's just not true. You asked how many work to increase the power of MPS and I would point out the cretchen did,and harper did. Gretchen was eventually done in by a back bench or a bolt. Harper frequently put his ministers front and center and gave them the power and authority to get things done. And it worked.

Even Justin gave a lot of authority to his MPS before suddenly realizing that that could work against him. But certainly before Justin empowering MP's was definitely a thing And not just a conservative thing

I noticed it's very common for liberals such as yourself to use this tactic. We bring up something that is going very wrong today and you make the false claim that it's not the person today's fault this has been happening for 50 years now! And it's all bullshit

This guy does not respect Canada, he doesn't respect democracy and he doesn't respect his MPS. And you're trying to blow it off when you should be upset about it

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

 

That's just not true. You asked how many work to increase the power of MPS and I would point out the cretchen did,and harper did. Gretchen was eventually done in by a back bench or a bolt. Harper frequently put his ministers front and center and gave them the power and authority to get things done. And it worked.

Even Justin gave a lot of authority to his MPS before suddenly realizing that that could work against him. But certainly before Justin empowering MP's was definitely a thing And not just a conservative thing

I noticed it's very common for liberals such as yourself to use this tactic. We bring up something that is going very wrong today and you make the false claim that it's not the person today's fault this has been happening for 50 years now! And it's all bullshit

This guy does not respect Canada, he doesn't respect democracy and he doesn't respect his MPS. And you're trying to blow it off when you should be upset about it

I don’t think that tactic is confined to ‘liberals’. Mention any of Trump’s grotesque crimes here and vaguely similar conduct committed by a Democrat long ago is dragged up from the vaults as some sort of excuse. 

Funny enough, I remember Steve as a bit of a control freak. For example, did he encourage open and free debate about abortion among his MPs? He had to keep a lid on that. With the way media is, you really can’t afford to air serious differences in public. 

What I’m describing is well documented across multiple countries. It’s been going on in Canada certainly since Pierre Trudeau took the reins and probably before that. Power is moving inexorably towards the PMO. Even ministers are becoming redundant appendages. If Poilievre gets in there will be no dramatic roll-back of these trends, believe me. Here’s the Google machine:

Quote

Yes, the centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) or equivalent central executive is a well-documented international trend across many Western parliamentary democracies, particularly within the Westminster system. [1, 2]

This phenomenon is often described by political scientists as the "presidentialization" of the head of government. Key elements of this global shift include: [1]

The Decline of Cabinet Authority: Traditionally, prime ministers operated under a model where the Cabinet functioned as the ultimate collective decision-making body. Today, power has increasingly shifted from the Cabinet table into the central apparatus of the Prime Minister's Office. [1]

Control of Communications: The 24/7 news cycle, social media, and the need for tightly managed, uniform political messaging have forced governments to centralize communications and strategic planning directly within the PMO. [1, 2]

Rise of Political Staff: The core staff in the PMO (unelected political aides) now frequently hold more direct influence over government operations, policy design, and bureaucratic appointments than traditional, non-partisan public servants. [1]

International and Multi-Polar Focus: As international diplomacy becomes highly personalized, leaders globally are taking on a much more pronounced, centralized role in foreign affairs and global coalitions directly from their office, sometimes at the expense of domestic departmental consultations. [1, 2]

Comparative academic research—such as studies mapping prime ministerial power across 21 Western democracies—notes that countries like Canada, Germany, Israel, and Malta consistently display very strong policy influence concentrated within the central leadership office. [1]

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by SpankyMcFarland

[Moonbox]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

He literally does say they're just useful for votes. We do have MPS but umm uhh uaahha they're just useful for votes (laughs)

It's right there. So that would make you the liar in the room.

It's pathetic how far you'll go to try and defend the indefensible

No, he "literally" doesn't say that, and even your loser news link doesn't show or quote that. 🤡

He said "just have MPs", and that's the only place that "just" shows up in the clip.  

Poor little Foxy, desperately grasping at straws and searching for relevance.  

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I don’t think that tactic is confined to ‘liberals’.

 

 

 

Oh look, a liberal who is trying to dodge the issue by blaming other people. How shocking  

Nothing you can say excuses this individual's Behavior. And rather than trying to play what about is him or blaming other people you should be addressing this very real problem.

 

Quote

Mention any of Trump’s grotesque crimes here and vaguely similar conduct committed by a Democrat long ago is dragged up from the vaults as some sort of excuse. 

Fine, bring up some specific example of a prime minister saying this in the past and we can have a comparison.

But that's not what you did.

 

Quote

Funny enough, I remember Steve as a bit of a control freak. For example, did he encourage open and free debate about abortion among his MPs? He had to keep a lid on that. With the way media is, you really can’t afford to air serious differences in public. 

On the contrary he allowed his mPS to discuss that kind of thing in caucus quite a bit. But he was a tyrant when it came to messaging. In other words everyone got their say And then policy was decided and one's policy was decided nobody got to step out of line a millimeter.

But he gave his ministers a lot of freedom to get their job done. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that Flaherty was constrained, he got a lot of freedom to do what he wanted. So did jason kenny who had a free hand with the immigration file. Many others did too. While harper controlled the messaging very firmly he very clearly allowed his MPS to get the job done however they wanted within the mandate

 

Quote

What I’m describing is well documented across multiple countries. It’s been going on in Canada certainly since Pierre Trudeau took the reins and probably before that. Power is moving inexorably towards the PMO. Even ministers are becoming redundant appendages. If Poilievre gets in there will be no dramatic roll-back of these trends, believe me. Here’s the Google machine:

No, you're deliberately moving the goal posts. There is a strong difference between keeping control over caucus and controlling the message to the public and not believing you are MPS have any value other than their vote. Harper treasured his MPS and their opinions and made much use of it but he still was the iron fist in the velvet glove and those who stepped out of line once policy was set got clobbered. But that doesn't mean he didn't listen to in Treasure his MPS or that he didn't give them freedom to get the job done as ministers were appropriate

This guy just up and up said his MPS are only useful for their votes. And his behavior kind of suggests that that really is how he believes. There is no comparison there, it has not been happening for centuries, I'm sure there are some other country somewhere with the leader just as bad but that doesn't make this good

Guy doesn't care about democracy, the guy doesn't care about his people, the guy definitely does not care about Canada. He's crapping on his own MPS in public, I don't think I've ever seen a prime minister do that in our history

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, he "literally" doesn't say that,

He literally does. That's what he says. But of course you couldn't come here with an actual argument all you could do is deny the evidence right in front of you which is pretty typical for you

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Poor little Foxy, desperately grasping at straws and searching for relevance.  

Ohhh that's right, i made you look stupid in another thread so you're back to your usual game of following me around picking fights and looking even stupider  

I often find myself thinking you can't make yourself look any worse than you usually but then I realize I just don't have your talent  

The guy says zombies are only useful for their vote or how you want to spend it that's a freaking horrible attitude for a prime minister to have. But of course you'll defend it, You'd still be voting Justin Trudeau if he was still around

[Legato]

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, he "literally" doesn't say that, and even your loser news link doesn't show or quote that. 🤡

He said "just have MPs", and that's the only place that "just" shows up in the clip.  

Poor little Foxy, desperately grasping at straws and searching for relevance.  

Do you have cloth ears?

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Legato said:

Do you have cloth ears?

He has liberal ears, they only hear what he wants  

[Moonbox]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He literally does. That's what he says. But of course you couldn't come here with an actual argument all you could do is deny the evidence right in front of you which is pretty typical for you

I don't think you know what "literally" means.  

The actual argument is that he literally does not say what you say he did. 

He literally says, "You just have MPs, and they're not...They're useful for votes".  That's the transcript, and that's the only actual argument required.  🙃

Once again, you're completely full of shit.  

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I don't think you know what "literally" means.  

The actual argument is that he literally does not say what you say he did. 

He literally says, "You just have MPs, and they're not...They're useful for votes".  That's the transcript, and that's the only actual argument required.  🙃

Once again, you're completely full of shit.  

You can hear it in the video, the transcripts provided by the actual people who were there are quite different

HOT MIC: Carney says MPs are "just useful for votes"

I mean if you watch the video he very clearly says just. And i notice no link to your 'transcript'  

And once again you continue your tradition of saying something stupid and easily proven wrong and then doubling down on your lie to try and desperately make yourself look better and I have no idea how you think it will.

He says they're just useful for votes and in the context of the discussion that is absolutely what you would expect he would be saying, not just that they're useful for votes.

You are a lying sack of shit. And it's so obviously demonstrable that you're a lying sack of shit because anyone can watch the video. And considering this is always how these things end all I can assume is that you really enjoy being publicly belittled and made to look a fool because you spend so much time doing exactly that  

[Moonbox]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You can hear it in the video, the transcripts provided by the actual people who were there are quite different

Yes, you can hear the video.  I quoted exactly what he said in it.  You made up something he didn't.  

Multiple paragraphs of pleading and make believe don't change it.  You're pathetic. 🤡

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Yes, you can hear the video. 

Then quit lying. He very clearly says just.   'they're not,  they're just useful for votes"

Multiple paragraphs of lying don't make you look better.  

[SpankyMcFarland]

57 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Oh look, a liberal who is trying to dodge the issue by blaming other people. How shocking  

Nothing you can say excuses this individual's Behavior. And rather than trying to play what about is him or blaming other people you should be addressing this very real problem.

 

Fine, bring up some specific example of a prime minister saying this in the past and we can have a comparison.

But that's not what you did.

 

On the contrary he allowed his mPS to discuss that kind of thing in caucus quite a bit. But he was a tyrant when it came to messaging. In other words everyone got their say And then policy was decided and one's policy was decided nobody got to step out of line a millimeter.

But he gave his ministers a lot of freedom to get their job done. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that Flaherty was constrained, he got a lot of freedom to do what he wanted. So did jason kenny who had a free hand with the immigration file. Many others did too. While harper controlled the messaging very firmly he very clearly allowed his MPS to get the job done however they wanted within the mandate

 

No, you're deliberately moving the goal posts. There is a strong difference between keeping control over caucus and controlling the message to the public and not believing you are MPS have any value other than their vote. Harper treasured his MPS and their opinions and made much use of it but he still was the iron fist in the velvet glove and those who stepped out of line once policy was set got clobbered. But that doesn't mean he didn't listen to in Treasure his MPS or that he didn't give them freedom to get the job done as ministers were appropriate

This guy just up and up said his MPS are only useful for their votes. And his behavior kind of suggests that that really is how he believes. There is no comparison there, it has not been happening for centuries, I'm sure there are some other country somewhere with the leader just as bad but that doesn't make this good

Guy doesn't care about democracy, the guy doesn't care about his people, the guy definitely does not care about Canada. He's crapping on his own MPS in public, I don't think I've ever seen a prime minister do that in our history

Harper brought a highly disciplined approach to the parties he ran which never fully coalesced. He centralized power. His time in office made things worse for MPs. 

Again from Google:

Quote

Stephen Harper enforced a highly centralized, top-down approach to party discipline and caucus control, primarily operated out of the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). His administration frequently centralized messaging, tightly controlled cabinet announcements, and limited unauthorized media access for MPs. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

His strategies for maintaining strict partisan control included:

Centralized Vetting: The PMO and party leadership heavily vetted candidates and controlled the approval process to ensure loyalty to the party's core platform. [1]

Strict Message Discipline: MPs and ministers were given tightly scripted talking points and were heavily discouraged, and sometimes forbidden, from speaking to the media on unapproved topics. [1]

Party Whips: Parliamentary whips were given expanded authority to ensure caucus members voted with the party line. Dissenters faced swift consequences, such as being removed from committees, losing their roles as parliamentary secretaries, or being denied the chance to introduce private members' bills. [1, 2]

Omnibus Bills: The government routinely used massive, complex omnibus budget implementation acts to pass major, controversial legislative changes at once, limiting debate and ensuring the caucus voted as a unified block. [1, 2]

Critics of the era often described these tactics as "muffling" MPs and suppressing internal dissent, arguing that it eroded the traditional representation of individual constituencies. Conversely, Conservative strategists defended the discipline as necessary to eliminate the internal factionalism and open disputes that had previously plagued the conservative movement, allowing the party to function as a united, electable national force. [1, 2, 3, 4]

I don’t like these trends but they have been around a long time and are getting worse. And Carney should not have said what he said. However, I wouldn’t judge a politician on one remark. 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Harper brought a highly disciplined approach to the parties he ran which never fully coalesced. He centralized power. His time in office made things worse for MPs. 

Simply not true. And your entirely misstating the quote that you provided

Yes absolutely had top-down messaging. Which is literally what I said. But he listened to his MPS and he let them do their jobs.

You're trying to pretend that tight party messaging is the same as ignoring his MPS and it is absolutely not even in the same category

Harper listen to all of his MPS, they got to make their case they got to present arguments and their input was considered extremely valuable. After that was done, policy was decided based on those conversations. And once policy was decided nobody was allowed to talk differently, everybody had to be on the same page.

But he still developed that policy with heavy consultation and every MP used to talk about how harper would listen

Now what we're hearing is that carney yells at his MPS, has a my way or the highway attitude and just claimed his mp's are just good for votes. 

There's no comparison. The MP's loved him, they were better off under him than under most leaders and the only ones that complained were i'll lose cannons that wanted to dispute policy in public.

16 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I don’t like these trends but they have been around a long time and are getting worse.

Again blatant lie. And you're very clearly willing to excuse this in the party leader you prefer.

There have been historically party leaders who had no respect for their MPS or the country they served. But no it's not like that's been going on consistently, that's the odd loser who is a bad person effective leaders tend to listen to their people and make use of their talents and skills and harper certainly was that way

[SpankyMcFarland]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Simply not true. And your entirely misstating the quote that you provided

Yes absolutely had top-down messaging. Which is literally what I said. But he listened to his MPS and he let them do their jobs.

You're trying to pretend that tight party messaging is the same as ignoring his MPS and it is absolutely not even in the same category

Harper listen to all of his MPS, they got to make their case they got to present arguments and their input was considered extremely valuable. After that was done, policy was decided based on those conversations. And once policy was decided nobody was allowed to talk differently, everybody had to be on the same page.

But he still developed that policy with heavy consultation and every MP used to talk about how harper would listen

Now what we're hearing is that carney yells at his MPS, has a my way or the highway attitude and just claimed his mp's are just good for votes. 

There's no comparison. The MP's loved him, they were better off under him than under most leaders and the only ones that complained were i'll lose cannons that wanted to dispute policy in public.

Again blatant lie. And you're very clearly willing to excuse this in the party leader you prefer.

There have been historically party leaders who had no respect for their MPS or the country they served. But no it's not like that's been going on consistently, that's the odd loser who is a bad person effective leaders tend to listen to their people and make use of their talents and skills and harper certainly was that way

Actually, I don’t like these trends. They debase our system. I’m afraid the historical record is quite clear that Harper accelerated them. 

You want to take a break from here. You’re beginning to sound a little frayed. 
 

 

[Moonbox]

55 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Then quit lying. He very clearly says just.   'they're not,  they're just useful for votes"

Multiple paragraphs of lying don't make you look better.  

No, he said, "just have MPs and they're not...they're useful for votes."

I understand that you've been caught bullshitting again and you need to lie and squirm and cry to save yourself the embarrassment, but it doesn't actually change the video.

Insist and plead all you want, but that doesn't change the video. 🤣

 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Actually, I don’t like these trends. They debase our system. I’m afraid the historical record is quite clear that Harper accelerated them. 

Historical record shows nothing of the sort. Very fact that you say you don't like the trend rather than condemning this particular person's Behavior strongly demonstrates that you actually have no such feelings and are quite willing to tolerate it in a leader that you like rather than criticize him

There's no trend here. This is a specific person who specifically is behaving exceptionally badly and obviously holds views about his own people which are incompatible with good leadership

But instead of addressing that you try and dodge the issue by claiming it's some great historical problem and pretending you don't like it while completely accepting it

Why are you like that? I would have already written a dozen letters if it was a conservative talking that way, demanding he's smart enough or get the hell out, and here you are excusing this Behavior and trying to claim that history and trends are the REAL villians here!  Nope - it's your guy and you should be condemning that. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Historical record shows nothing of the sort. Very fact that you say you don't like the trend rather than condemning this particular person's Behavior strongly demonstrates that you actually have no such feelings and are quite willing to tolerate it in a leader that you like rather than criticize him

There's no trend here. This is a specific person who specifically is behaving exceptionally badly and obviously holds views about his own people which are incompatible with good leadership

But instead of addressing that you try and dodge the issue by claiming it's some great historical problem and pretending you don't like it while completely accepting it

Why are you like that? I would have already written a dozen letters if it was a conservative talking that way, demanding he's smart enough or get the hell out, and here you are excusing this Behavior and trying to claim that history and trends are the REAL villians here!  Nope - it's your guy and you should be condemning that. 

Such a screed. Which is not about me at all. You need to calm down. Big breaths. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

No, he said, "just have MPs and they're not...they're useful for votes."

 

 

Sure pumpkin 😏😏😏🙄🙄🙄 Tell yourself whatever lies you need you to get through the night. We can all hear the tape and dozens of sources agree that that he said 'just'.  And it wouldn't have even made sense if he'd said it the way you claimed

He said 'Just useful for votes' and then laughed thinking it was a great joke. 

Liberals are all the same, "Justin was a great leader! Our economy is booming! Things have not been so affordable for decades! Carly never said what he said honest!'

I'm sure there's a way for you to look more pathetic but I can't think of what it would be right now. Sorry was that too many words for you?

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Such a screed. Which is not about me at all. You need to calm down. Big breaths. 

Oh yes, you can't refute the points so you attack the writer.

You're the one who's practically peeing all over yourself to try and defend carney. And when I pointed out you're having this little hissy fit. 

I guess this is your way of trying to distract from the fact that you are defending the indefensible. I guess for some people revering their leader is more important than truth

[Legato]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No, he "literally" doesn't say that, and even your loser news link doesn't show or quote that. 🤡

He said "just have MPs", and that's the only place that "just" shows up in the clip.  

Poor little Foxy, desperately grasping at straws and searching for relevance.  

"we have MP's they're not - they're just good for votes".

It's all over the internet, google it.