A cabinet shuffle

[Michael Bluth]

It isn't splitting hairs. Secretary of states are not considered cabinet.

So they are members of the Ministry but not the Cabinet. Does that make you feel happier?

Again, if that's the only thing wrong with this shuffle it ain't all that bad.

[jdobbin]

So they are members of the Ministry but not the Cabinet. Does that make you feel happier?

Again, if that's the only thing wrong with this shuffle it ain't all that bad.

As I said, one less woman in cabinet and not one woman with a prominent position. Does that make you feel happier? Or do you harbour a sexist position on it like you do with Ruby Dhalla?

And I'm sure you feel the cabinet shuffle is all peaches and cream. Just like you felt about the last cabinet shuffle.

Edited August 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

As I said, one less woman in cabinet and not one woman with a prominent position. Does that make you feel happier?

Prominence is in the eye of the beholder.

Ablonczy will be very prominent in her Secretary of State role.

[jdobbin]

Prominence is in the eye of the beholder.

Ablonczy will be very prominent in her Secretary of State role.

It isn't in the eyes of beholder. Of course when someone has a sexist background, they behold things differently.

[Michael Bluth]

It isn't in the eyes of beholder. Of course when someone has a sexist background, they behold things differently.

Really? There is a unbiased measure of prominence with respect to an unmeasurable quantity such as prominence. Do provide evidence of that?

Or you can attack me. I know what you are more likely to do. No more engaging you tonight though.

----End of Dobbin's tangent---

Lewis MacKenzie had a good quote on the challenges facing MacKay in his new job.

Retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie said MacKay will have to do far more than explain the Afghanistan mission to the public. He said there are growing issues within the military that need attention.

"The military is in crisis on spending, it's in crisis on having enough instructors to train new recruits," said MacKenzie.

"The military has some serious issues that have to be dealt with. Gordon O'Connor was attacking those, and I'm sure Peter MacKay will continue the offensive."

[jdobbin]

Really? There is a unbiased measure of prominence with respect to an unmeasurable quantity such as prominence. Do provide evidence of that?

Or you can attack me. I know what you are more likely to do. No more engaging you tonight though.

I am saying you have not replied to the sexist post that you made about Ruby Dhalla. It is hard to assess what you think of women in government until you address it.

Where is the link for this quote?

Edited August 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

Where is the link for this quote?

Finally, a valid question related to the subject of this thread.

Here is the link sir.

Feel free to ask anything else on the topic of the thread?

[jdobbin]

Finally, a valid question related to the subject of this thread.

Here is the link sir.

Feel free to ask anything else on the topic of the thread?

Thanks for the link. You seemed quite sensitive to it when I couldn't include in an edit after the format change.

And why are you so evasive on sexism when you can so confidently say that fewer women in cabinet is a good thing?

[Michael Bluth]

Thanks for the link. You seemed quite sensitive to it when I couldn't include in an edit after the format change.

Not senisitive at all. I asked you one question about it and you reply. By that standard were you being sensitive in asking me for the link?

Again, I'll answer any questions on the topic of the thread. Do you have a comment on the story I linked to or were you just trying to start another fight?

[jdobbin]

Not senisitive at all. I asked you one question about it and you reply. By that standard were you being sensitive in asking me for the link?

Again, I'll answer any questions on the topic of the thread. Do you have a comment on the story I linked to or were you just trying to start another fight?

I think you referred to the rules when asking for the link in the thread being discussed. I didn't mention anything about rules but then I wasn't acting like a moderator.

Why didn't you answer questions about your sexism in the thread where you made a sexist remark? Or the Kinsella thread? Why run away from the issue of sexism? You seem to be defending the choice of the present cabinet choices but can your defence be trusted when you say sexist things?

[jbg]

I'm glad to see Mackay gone from Foreign, though how a Francophone will do in that post is an open question.

[Michael Bluth]

I'm glad to see Mackay gone from Foreign, though how a Francophone will do in that post is an open question.

That's a very good question.

Canada has never had a Francophone Minister of Foreign Affairs and only one Francophone, very briefly, served as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Chretien served as Secretary of State for External Affairs for seven weeks. But five of those were an election.

Very interesting that this move has never been made before.

Bernier is a strong minister and I can't see him encountering any problems in this role.

[jbg]

Canada has never had a Francophone Minister of Foreign Affairs and only one Francophone, very briefly, served as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Chretien served as Secretary of State for External Affairs for seven weeks. But five of those were an election.

I hope your optimism is well placed. It seems similar to placing Petain or Laval at the head of the Allied armies in WW II or placing the Royal Canadian Army under Louis Riel's control.

[Michael Bluth]

Wow, Gordon Gibson had a great line during the At Issue panel (The National) on the cabinet shuffle.

"Harper is facing the weakest Liberal leader of the official opposition in the last 100 years."

Nobody challenged him on it.

Has that become the conventional wisdom of the MSM?

[August1991]

That's a very good question.

Canada has never had a Francophone Minister of Foreign Affairs and only one Francophone, very briefly, served as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Chretien served as Secretary of State for External Affairs for seven weeks. But five of those were an election.

Very interesting that this move has never been made before.

Bernier is a strong minister and I can't see him encountering any problems in this role.

I think the Wikipedia article is wrong on this. It seems to me that Trudeau named Chretien to External. (I know for sure that Trudeau named Chretien to Finance, the first francophone in Canadian history).

Whatever. (Except that this should be a reminder to Argus, Leafless et al about how difficult it is for a francophone to command political power in federal governement.)

----

Harper's made a few obvious changes that will help them all win a majority. MacKay is worth more in NS than Afghanistan whereas Bernier is worth more in Afghanistan. Verner is sensible in Secretary of State.

I'm intrigued with Prentice in Industry. I wonder whether this is an indication of the long term direction of a Harper government. Bernier got the deregulation going, and Prentice will make it happen.

All in all, a good, minor, seriously adjusting shuffle. A firm hand at the helm, shifting wisely. A shuffle in August? Gimme a break.

A positive for the federal Liberals? I liked Dion's criticsm: "It's Harper Anyway." Dion's right and this Dion vs. Harper story is far from over. I still think that we'll see Harper in opposition to a PM Dion.

Edited August 15, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

I think the Wikipedia article is wrong on this. It seems to me that Trudeau named Chretien to External. (I know for sure that Trudeau named Chretien to Finance, the first francophone in Canadian history).

Whatever. (Except that this should be a reminder to Argus, Leafless et al about how difficult it is for a francophone to command political power in federal governement.)

----

Harper's made a few obvious changes that will help them all win a majority. MacKay is worth more in NS than Afghanistan whereas Bernier is worth more in Afghanistan. Verner is sensible in Secretary of State.

I'm intrigued with Prentice in Industry. I wonder whether this is an indication of the long term direction of a Harper government. Bernier got the deregulation going, and Prentice will make it happen.

All in all, a good, minor, seriously adjusting shuffle. A firm hand at the helm, shifting wisely. A shuffle in August? Gimme a break.

A positive for the federal Liberals? I liked Dion's criticsm: "It's Harper Anyway." Dion's right and this Dion vs. Harper story is far from over. I still think that we'll see Harper in opposition to a PM Dion.

Chretien was Parliamentary secretary to Pearson in 65, secretary to Finance in 66 and made it to cabinet in 1968 and Minister of National Revenue in 1968. In 1974, he was President of the Treasury Board and two years later, he was Minister of Industry. In 1977, Chretien became Finance minister. In 1980, he was Justice minister and Attorney-General. In 1982, he was the Energy minister. He lost the leadership in 1984 but was appointed Deputy Prime Minister. He was chosen by Turner as Secretary of State for External Affairs at the same time.

francophones can achieve power in Ottawa if you look at Chretien.

No new faces in the cabinet. One new face in the ministry. Fewer women in cabinet, none in the top offices. And given the poor results of cabinet shuffles as demonstrated by analysis by Ipsos since 1989, probably not a great help for polling numbers. As most analysts were saying, they need new policy ideas not just a different wrapping on older ideas such as Afghanistan, the Wheat Board and the environment.

I don't know that Bernier got deregulation going. Do you have any citations on what progress was made? Even some of the Quebec analysts were a little disappointed in his presence in Ottawa so far. I just don't know enough about him except his resume.

Prentice is a stick to your knitting type. Hard working, results oriented. He has done good work thus far. I was going to start a thread on the new Nunavik, a result I think that got through after five years because of a steady hand from this minister.

Dion is quite correct that it is all Harper. It is telling that even after being appointed, the ministers ran to their cars with no comment. Harper spoke hours later because he controls the message. If his ministers do not get more of a free hand to do their work, there will be no buffer between Harper and every government department.

Edited August 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Wow, Gordon Gibson had a great line during the At Issue panel (The National) on the cabinet shuffle.

"Harper is facing the weakest Liberal leader of the official opposition in the last 100 years."

Nobody challenged him on it.

He also said that Harper was not able to do better despite Dion's weakness in the polls. The expectation that Dion was going to do even worse was unfounded as witnessed by the SES poll which shows that in three months, Dion is the only leader to show popularity growth.

Edited August 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

A positive for the federal Liberals? I liked Dion's criticsm: "It's Harper Anyway." Dion's right and this Dion vs. Harper story is far from over. I still think that we'll see Harper in opposition to a PM Dion.

Doubtful. On the off chance Dion beats Harper, Harper will pull a Paul Martin and announce his resignation election night.

[Argus]

The problem with Harper's govt in my view is HARPER!!

Odd how much more popular he is than the other party leaders, eh?

[Argus]

Like I always had said, if Conservatives don't have budgets to cut and programs to slash, they really don't know what else to do.

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

[Michael Bluth]

Odd how much more popular he is than the other party leaders, eh?

Interesting how some of the diehard Liberals here see it as a good thing that Stephane Dion is only 8 points behind Harper on the best PM question.

[Michael Bluth]

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

Or when Paul Martin who was busy all the time. Then again that's what happens when you have 57 priorities.

[Argus]

I believe that Emerson is a pragmatic, though unethical, solution to a specific problem. That problem has now gone by, but moving him is too politically risky now. Emerson was elected, and he moved in the belief that he was better representing his consituants.

Fortier isn't accountable to anyone and was put in that spot for power, and to insure Harper had a close friend nearby.

I believe that Fortier should stand for election in Outermount or not be in cabinet. I don't want party hacks being appointed to Ministerial positions because of their commitment to the leader.

Are you for real? Most of the people in cabinet over the past forty years could best be described in exactly that way - party hacks put in place because of their loyalty to the leader. Chretien and Martin surrounded themselves with loyal cabinet colleagues who had to convene a meeting to find the toilets in their offices.

In specific cases like this previously, of course, what the party did, usually the Liberals, was to bribe a sitting MP in a very safe seat to give up his seat in order to allow the new guy a guaranteeed seat in parliament. The resigning MP then wound up as ambassador somewhere, or on high paying boards.

You're telling me this is your preferred solution?

[M.Dancer]

Interesting how some of the diehard Liberals here see it as a good thing that Stephane Dion is only 8 points behind Harper on the best PM question.

As a die hard liberal I disagree. I think it would be a good thing if he was 18 points back, then perhaps we could get a leader that might represent the party and Canada.

[Argus]

It isn't in the eyes of beholder. Of course when someone has a sexist background, they behold things differently.

The Conservative Party has always been a nuts-and-bolts party, a party of fiscal responsibility. Naturally this does not tend to attract as many women as a party which is all about touchie-feelie policies like the Liberals. Mind you, I can't think of a female Liberal cabinet minister of any particular quality over the past ten years. Perhaps you'll remind me.

The NDP and Liberals solve the problem of fewer women interested in politics by simply giving females prefernetial treatment, and appointing them to responsible positions regardless of their capabilities. The NDP even went so far as to appoint to incompetent females as their leaders. In my regard, this paternalistic behaviour in appointing lesser people to jobs simply due to their sex is the ulimate in sexism. Of course, liberals never see it that way. Liberals aren't very good at honesty or realism.

In any event, the Liberals appointed incompetent women in order to look good - without any care about their competence. The Liberals always saw their job as campaigning and doing whatever would get them votes, as opposed to running the country responsibly.