A cabinet shuffle

[Higgly]

Maybe somebody else has made this comment...

I am having a lot of trouble understanding why Conrad Black is going to jail for playing fast and loose with his shareholders and Jim Flaherty has been named Finance Minister for the second time after the last budget he presented at Queen's Park.

And make no mistake about it. I have no sympathy for Lord Black in the least.

[jdobbin]

don`t forget that the first time your man ran for a seat he called himself Steve, not the pretentious Stephen.

A lot of people seem to forget that.

[jdobbin]

Rex Murphy on the cabinet shuffle.

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/s...mment/11/11/18/

If cabinet ministers were recognized, within the boundaries of the parliamentary system, as being strong, independent, creative leaders of their own departments, then a reassignment of any core of them would be a change, in the playwright's words, of "some pitch and moment."

But this is the Harper government, remember, and Stephen Harper has demonstrated a taste for control of all that goes on, and all that is said on its behalf, that is quite singular.

A not-so-trivial illustration of how much the cabinet is absolutely a Harper cabinet comes from a story in Thursday's Globe. Maxime Bernier goes to his new position as the Minister of Foreign Affairs without the benefit of chief of staff Michele Austin, who served him at Industry. It would seem an obvious consideration that a powerful minister would have both the wish to choose his own chief, and the clout to exercise that wish.

Not so. According to the news report, Michele Austin was told by the Prime Minister's Office to go join the demoted Gordon O'Connor over at National Revenue. What does it say for the independent stature of a very high profile minister when he doesn't even get to choose his own political staff? If the Prime Minister can't, or won't, trust Mr. Bernier's judgment when it comes to staffing his own office, if the PMO inserts itself at that level of detail in the functioning of a senior cabinet minister, what are the odds that Mr. Bernier will, in his own person, contribute significantly to that portfolio?

That's the problem, politically, with this cabinet shuffle. In Mr. Harper's government, the brand is his own last name. His cabinet doesn't have any star performers. (It's an odd, but I think very interesting, note that the only star performer with any flair of independence we might associate with the Harper government is General Rick Hillier and, of course, the Chief of the Defence Staff isn't, as we say, in the government to begin with.) On the tight "good ship Harper," even the very best are only second mates.

Murphy goes on to compare him with the worst characteristics of Chretien and Trudeau.

It's a combination of bully with know-it-all, a salad if you will of the least attractive properties of (heresy) Jean Chrétien and Pierre Trudeau on their bad days.

That said, this Prime Minister is smarter and better than the occasional bouts of pettiness and belligerence that are coming to define him. The public image of the Harper government is the image of Mr. Harper himself. Shuffling the cabinet without a change of style at the top will not significantly alter this government's prospects.

Edited August 18, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Here is the story that Rex Murphy was referring to about the PMO controlling chief of staff changes for ministers.

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/s...eadline/7/7/31/

A second federal government shuffle - this one of top aides to ministers - is creating grumbles in the insular world of Conservative insiders in Ottawa.

At least three chiefs of staff lost their posts when their ministers were shuffled, but the move of long-time Conservative and early Stephen Harper supporter Michele Austin has become the talk of the town, according to several Conservative aides and strategists.

Ms. Austin, the highly regarded chief of staff to Maxime Bernier when he was industry minister, was told by an aide to the Prime Minister, Bruce Carson, that she would not follow her boss to Foreign Affairs. Instead, the Prime Minister's Office told her she would work for the demoted Gordon O'Connor in the low-profile National Revenue post.

She refused and is now out of a job, according to several sources familiar with the events.

None of those who spoke about Ms. Austin's departure would be identified by name, and none claimed to have first-hand knowledge of the motivations of the PMO for moving her. However, several said they view the treatment of Ms. Austin, a Reform Party veteran, as punishment for her willingness to challenge PMO directives when she felt they were not good ideas or were bad for her boss.

Most of the chiefs had a Reform background. Maybe these chiefs didn't contribute $1000 the Tory party as requested.

But some Tory insiders said Ms. Austin's departure has led to a round of grumbling among Conservatives who view the PMO's staff-relations approach as "ham-handed," comparing it to what some felt was an overly aggressive recent request from the PMO that each minister's chief of staff donate $1,000 to the Conservative Party.

Ms. Austin's move is being seen as doubly surprising because she is not only a veteran of the opposition offices of the Reform Party, Canadian Alliance and Conservative Party, but was also one of the first handful of party workers who worked toward making Mr. Harper leader when he returned to politics in 2001.

[Michael Bluth]

LOL, sure. Convenient excuse when you don`t have a rebuttal. You know I`m right.

And you do get what you give in life. Like I said you can be a follower or you can be a questioner. I prefer not to follow. And it is interesting that it`s only no respect given to your man that bothers you. So transparent.

PS RB, don`t forget that the first time your man ran for a seat he called himself Steve, not the pretentious Stephen.

He's a grown man, and has the right to be called by the name on his birth certificate if he so chooses. Since you avoided the childish baiting of referring to the PM as Steve, I'll answer your questions.

Part of my post questions the intelligence of Bev Oda. Neither of you addressed that, choosing to deflect by attacking me instead. Am I to believe by this that you both think Bev Oda is very intelligent and deserves to be in cabinet above others in the "new" government? Is she the best they can do? And, by your silence on my comment about cabinet ministers not really having the freedom to deal with their portfolios, is that an admission that they do not? Or do you suggest that they have the authority to deal with and speak to issues within those departments without running it past the head man?

Who gives a flying f*ck about Oda's "intelligence" as you see it? I have never met her, don't know and don't care about her intelligence. I do know that I have met a lot of socially retarded geniuses and I'd rather have Oda in Cabinet over them. Do you have a specific IQ that cabinet ministers would have to pass? Social skills matters a lot more in politics, and there are a lot of ways to gauge a person's capacity beyond IQ.

The 'best' the Conservatives can do? In what sense? She was a solid choice given her professional experience, coupled with the need to select a cabinet representative of all Canadians.

No silence on any comments. Vague terms like 'freedom to deal with their portfolios' probably make you feel better, because they are so easily refuted. Unless a cabinet minister has 100% authority over everything in their portfio you could argue for your case. Well, that ain't how it works in any cabinet under any PM. Cabinet is not a democracy. No Ministers have had absolute authority to deal with issues within their department without running it past the PM. Not under Chretien, not under Mulroney, and absolutely not under Trudeau.

The leader of the party that wins the election leads the Government.

Since you took offence to not having your questions answered, here's one you forgot to answer. It is fair for you to treat people the way you expect to be treated, isn't it?

And on how many posts have you not only attacked me but challenged my right to post here?

Edited August 21, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Fortunata]

Tsk, tsk, such a temper Michael Bluth. If I raise this much ire in you you better put me on ignore like I have jgb on ignore. That's why his posts, if they are ever directed to me, don't get answered.

[Michael Bluth]

Tsk, tsk, such a temper Michael Bluth. If I raise this much ire in you you better put me on ignore like I have jgb on ignore. That's why his posts, if they are ever directed to me, don't get answered.

Your questions were answered. You saw jbg's question in my post.

Why not answer it? Nice double-standard there.

I take it from the silence on my answers means you completely agree with what I said.

[Argus]

Maybe somebody else has made this comment...

I am having a lot of trouble understanding why Conrad Black is going to jail for playing fast and loose with his shareholders and Jim Flaherty has been named Finance Minister for the second time after the last budget he presented at Queen's Park.

And make no mistake about it. I have no sympathy for Lord Black in the least.

And yet you were slavishly devoted to Paul Martin and Jean Chretien despite years of massively fraudulent budgets.

[Fortunata]

Your questions were answered. You saw jbg's question in my post.

Why not answer it? Nice double-standard there.

I don't like answering him but since you asked, again (as if it is any of your business): I don't deny anyone the right to post on any boards they want. The more the merrier. What I take umbrage of is the fact he comes on a Canadian board and tells Canadians they should use American spelling, talk about arrogance. We should be able to spell like we spell without being told it's "not the right way." He couches his "superiority complex" by simpering little posts and informations about how bad Canadians are and when taken to task about it he throws up his hands and says oh I am just a poor innocent little foreigner trying to understand how it is. He's a phony and a weasel in my opinion and I'd rather have a wisdom tooth pulled than read his insincere bullshit. How's that for an answer?

I take it from the silence on my answers means you completely agree with what I said.

Ah .. no. Good try though.

[M.Dancer]

I don't like answering him but since you asked, again (as if it is any of your business): I don't deny anyone the right to post on any boards they want. The more the merrier. What I take umbrage of is the fact he comes on a Canadian board and tells Canadians they should use American spelling, talk about arrogance. We should be able to spell like we spell without being told it's "not the right way." He couches his "superiority complex" by simpering little posts and informations about how bad Canadians are and when taken to task about it he throws up his hands and says oh I am just a poor innocent little foreigner trying to understand how it is. He's a phony and a weasel in my opinion and I'd rather have a wisdom tooth pulled than read his insincere bullshit. How's that for an answer?

Ah .. no. Good try though.

Oh he's just being a playful pillock. He's not serious though, he knows full well that Canadians are his intellectual and moral superiors and he plays the prat to see how long it takes to get us riled.

[Michael Bluth]

Oh he's just being a playful pillock. He's not serious though, he knows full well that Canadians are his intellectual and moral superiors and he plays the prat to see how long it takes to get us riled.

If being a playful pillock means he is just joking around than I agree with MD 100%

[jbg]

I don't like answering him but since you asked, again (as if it is any of your business): I don't deny anyone the right to post on any boards they want. The more the merrier. What I take umbrage of is the fact he comes on a Canadian board and tells Canadians they should use American spelling, talk about arrogance. We should be able to spell like we spell without being told it's "not the right way." He couches his "superiority complex" by simpering little posts and informations about how bad Canadians are and when taken to task about it he throws up his hands and says oh I am just a poor innocent little foreigner trying to understand how it is. He's a phony and a weasel in my opinion and I'd rather have a wisdom tooth pulled than read his insincere bullshit. How's that for an answer?

Ah .. no. Good try though.

Not true. You questioned my right to attend hospitality suites at the CPC convention.

[Michael Bluth]

Not true. You questioned my right to attend hospitality suites at the CPC convention.

Don't bother jbg. Just gotta let some people vent.

Odd though, I don't really think there are any rights associated with attending hospitality suites. Unless you are a Young Lib, then it is your G*d given right to get sh*t faced at every convention you attend.

[Fortunata]

QUOTE(jbg @ Aug 22 2007, 07:24 AM) *

Not true. You questioned my right to attend hospitality suites at the CPC convention.

That's a lie. Go back and I'm sure you'll find I questioned why you did, why you wanted to attend a CPC convention especially since you are a self-professed liberal. I found it strange then and would still now if I hadn't figured you out. See above.

[scribblet]

I expect you'd prefer it if they occupied their time stealing the country blind like the Liberals.

LOL it seems to me that anti conservative news is pretty slow these days when the best people can do here is nitpick over clothes etc. It also seems to me that the longer Harper stays in power, the more angry the liberals get because they are NOT in power.

Harper has made some good political moves such as giving a French Canadian the Heritage post which sure beats the Liberals' 'sponsorship' approach to national unity. -

Peter MacKay has the biggest challenge and the biggest opportunity in Defence, no doubt he's up to the task.

[jbg]

QUOTE(jbg @ Aug 22 2007, 07:24 AM) *

Not true. You questioned my right to attend hospitality suites at the CPC convention.

That's a lie. Go back and I'm sure you'll find I questioned why you did, why you wanted to attend a CPC convention especially since you are a self-professed liberal. I found it strange then and would still now if I hadn't figured you out. See above.

Your nastiness and lies know no bounds (link).

[Fortunata]

Your nastiness and lies know no bounds (link).

Whoa hold on there ... not nastiness and not lies. Calling a person out on a mistruth is not nastiness no matter how you think it might pull in the sympathy (poor misunderstood jbg). Nowhere in my posts did I say you did not have the "right" to attend a CPC convention as you accused me of. It's just like I said, I questioned why you did, why you wanted to and remarked (again, because you seem to not be able to comprehend) that it was strange.

There, that should be the end of it. You lied because you thought no-one would call you on it. Now, I am asking you very politely not to continue this as you have been caught out. There is a reason you are the only person on my ignore list.