A cabinet shuffle

[jdobbin]

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.

I'd tend to disagree with you on the fiscal responsibility issue given that spending exceeds the Conservative party promise listed on their website to keep increases at the level of inflation.

As for Liberals in the senior cabinet, I would have said Anne McLellan belonged there even if you disagree with her politics. Diane Marleau was capable as well. I think you have to add Lucienne Robillard to the list. I was never a fan of Sheila Copps but she was no less capable than a few dozen of her male colleagues in cabinet.

I think there are a few capable women in the Harper caucus. I think one (Ambrose) was left to carry the bag for the PMO's policy say on the environment or in Skelton's case, was removed from higher level cabinet position for indicating that she was not going to run again. I had never heard that she wished to step down as a minister.

Edited August 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[Argus]

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.

Your problem is Dion's popularity rises in inverse proportion to the air-time he's given. The more people saw of him after he got elected the less they liked him. Harper is the opposite. The more people see him the more they respect him.

That doesn't look good for you Dion folks for an election, unless you can stick Dion in a cellar somewhere until the election is over.

[Argus]

I'd tend to disagree with you on the fiscal responsibility issue given that spending exceeds the Conservative party promise listed on their website to keep increases at the level of inflation.

As for Liberals in the senior cabinet, I would have said Anne McLellan belonged there even if you disagree with her politics. Diane Marleau was capable as well. I think you have to add Lucienne Robillard to the list. I was never a fan of Sheila Copps but she was no less capable than a few dozen of her male colleagues in cabinet.

And after what was it thirteen years in office with whopping big majorities, the party of equality and respect for women, the (l)iberal Liberal party the best you can come up with is three female ministers who might have been somewhat competent, none of whom stood out for more than crass partisanship - and Sheila Copps, a hateful, self-serving, venal, shrill partisan who never had an idea and never accomplished anything in office but enriching herself.

[Argus]

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.)

Don't be ludicrous. The reason the number two position is usually an anglophone is because the number one position is usually a Francophone.

[jdobbin]

Your problem is Dion's popularity rises in inverse proportion to the air-time he's given. The more people saw of him after he got elected the less they liked him. Harper is the opposite. The more people see him the more they respect him.

That doesn't look good for you Dion folks for an election, unless you can stick Dion in a cellar somewhere until the election is over.

I believe the SES poll on leader support shows that even when Harper was being seen in Parliament, his popularity was falling so the idea that he constantly rises when visible is not supported. Also, it isn't like Harper has been invisible this summer. He makes spending announcements every week.

Dion has a ways to go but in 90 days closed the gap considerably.

[jdobbin]

And after what was it thirteen years in office with whopping big majorities, the party of equality and respect for women, the (l)iberal Liberal party the best you can come up with is three female ministers who might have been somewhat competent, none of whom stood out for more than crass partisanship - and Sheila Copps, a hateful, self-serving, venal, shrill partisan who never had an idea and never accomplished anything in office but enriching herself.

Even the Liberals have had a poor record of recruiting female candidates. And as I said, I didn't really support Sheila Copps but she was no less partisan than some in the Tory cabinet now.

And it is the Tory party stuck at 29% in support with women who need to somehow connect with this demographic with policies and people. If all the Tory response is a constant refrain of there are no capable women then some of that vote is going elsewhere.

Edited August 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

And after what was it thirteen years in office with whopping big majorities, the party of equality and respect for women, the (l)iberal Liberal party the best you can come up with is three female ministers who might have been somewhat competent, none of whom stood out for more than crass partisanship - and Sheila Copps, a hateful, self-serving, venal, shrill partisan who never had an idea and never accomplished anything in office but enriching herself.

There is the rub.

The Liberals do call themselves the party of equality and respect for women. They do have the Liberal Women's Commission.

Yet they are barely ahead of the CPC, and in many cases only due to the appointment of favoured candidates. Yet the line sexist line against the CPC and their supporters gets parroted over and over and over again.

Has anybody thought that there could be other factors at play that lead to more men in politics?

[Fortunata]

Another thread that involves the "new" government co-opted by the "but the Liberals" whiners. A cabinet shuffle by the Cons is nothing to do with the Libs or the NDP. Their comments are immaterial. Comments that would be pertinent, however, weren't made as Harper doesn't allow his minions to speak freely, be they Ministers or not. Ho hum, I guess this whole shuffle is then immaterial because it is not they who run their portfolios or make decisions; it is Steve.

The one appointed Minister that is laughable is Bev Oda. She doesn't appear to be smart enough to be elected let alone be in cabinet. Of all the women that were elected for the Cons, she got appointed?? She can't carry a message let alone the already-prepared controlled script sent out by the Steve capos. What a great female representative (or even more telling - a Con representative).

[M.Dancer]

The one appointed Minister that is laughable is Bev Oda. She doesn't appear to be smart enough to be elected let alone be in cabinet. Of all the women that were elected for the Cons, she got appointed??

She has been elected twice.

In 1999, Ms. Oda was appointed senior Vice-President, Industry Affairs, at CTV

From 1987 to 1993 she served as a commissioner with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

She graduated from the University of Toronto with a Bachelor of Arts. She served as chair of the Lakeridge Health Hospital Network and is a recipient of the Queen’s Golden Jubilee medal.

Her resume says otherwise.

[jdobbin]

Her resume says otherwise.

It is why her performance was disappointing. Even with an increased budget this year, her department failed to get applications off before the start of summer. Her new appointment is regarded as a demotion. She didn't seem to be a strong performer in the House at all.

[Fortunata]

Her resume says otherwise.

Anyone can get an education if they have the money, and some, even if they don't have.

Her resume isn't that impressive given her age. As far as being elected twice, it shows how smart the voting public is I guess.

[Argus]

Another thread that involves the "new" government co-opted by the "but the Liberals" whiners. A cabinet shuffle by the Cons is nothing to do with the Libs or the NDP. Their comments are immaterial. Comments that would be pertinent, however, weren't made as Harper doesn't allow his minions to speak freely, be they Ministers or not. Ho hum, I guess this whole shuffle is then immaterial because it is not they who run their portfolios or make decisions; it is Steve.

What else is there to say? This is a non issue, and the whiners who insist on trying to bitch and moan about non-events like how many women or left handed lesbians are in Cabinet clearly have nothing better to do with their time.

As for the Liberals, that's always material to a discussion, for the only alternative to the present government is the Liberals - who are as bad or worse. In other words, shut up and quit snivelling unless you can point to something that will do better.

[Michael Bluth]

What else is there to say? This is a non issue, and the whiners who insist on trying to bitch and moan about non-events like how many women or left handed lesbians are in Cabinet clearly have nothing better to do with their time.

As for the Liberals, that's always material to a discussion, for the only alternative to the present government is the Liberals - who are as bad or worse. In other words, shut up and quit snivelling unless you can point to something that will do better.

Argus, great points.

Some posters to be here just to vent at the 'whiners' who dare to not share her political views, question the appearnce of intelligence by some cabinet ministers and to get a jab in at 'Steve'. If people want to be disrespectful, meh no worries.

I've said it repeatedly. If people are splitting hairs about the number of women in the ministry as opposed to the cabinet, well then it ain't that bad a shuffle.

Of course it's natural to compare to the Liberals. A frame of reference is necessary for judging anything in life. But then again, some people are just here to stir things up.

[jdobbin]

What else is there to say? This is a non issue, and the whiners who insist on trying to bitch and moan about non-events like how many women or left handed lesbians are in Cabinet clearly have nothing better to do with their time.

As for the Liberals, that's always material to a discussion, for the only alternative to the present government is the Liberals - who are as bad or worse. In other words, shut up and quit snivelling unless you can point to something that will do better.

It will be an issue if the Tories can't budge from 29% support from women across the country according to the polls. They need higher numbers from that quarter to win their majority. The shut up and stop snivelling comment if presented as the policy of the Tories will go over well at the ballot box.

[Michael Bluth]

The shut up and stop snivelling comment if presented as the policy of the Tories will go over well at the ballot box.

I'm not quite sure what to make of that line.

I can't see any party presenting a statement such as Argus' as official party policy.

I don't believe Argus is acting in an official manner for any party by posting here on MLW. Then again I could be wrong.

Edited August 16, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Fortunata]

What else is there to say? This is a non issue, and the whiners who insist on trying to bitch and moan about non-events like how many women or left handed lesbians are in Cabinet clearly have nothing better to do with their time.

As for the Liberals, that's always material to a discussion, for the only alternative to the present government is the Liberals - who are as bad or worse. In other words, shut up and quit snivelling unless you can point to something that will do better.

You fail to address the fundamentals of the post in your attempt to discredit me. At no time did I bitch and moan about the number of women (or left handed lesbians) in cabinet. As for the Liberal whiners, the Steve supporters at all costs can always justify "...but the Liberals" even when used as a deflection or justification for poor performance.

Some posters to be here just to vent at the 'whiners' who dare to not share her political views, question the appearnce of intelligence by some cabinet ministers and to get a jab in at 'Steve'. If people want to be disrespectful, meh no worries.

I've said it repeatedly. If people are splitting hairs about the number of women in the ministry as opposed to the cabinet, well then it ain't that bad a shuffle.

Of course it's natural to compare to the Liberals. A frame of reference is necessary for judging anything in life. But then again, some people are just here to stir things up.

Some of this is just plain hilarious coming from you. Share my political views? Hahaha - you are the one that attacks anyone who doesn't blindly follow the Steve party whether they act like a Steve party or a Liberal party. As far as disrespect as you say - "meh". You can be a follower or you can question. I'd rather question.

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?

Some posters are just here to stir things up without dealing specifically with issues other posters bring up.

[Michael Bluth]

As for the Liberal whiners, the Steve supporters at all costs can always justify "...but the Liberals" even when used as a deflection or justification for poor performance.

Some of this is just plain hilarious coming from you. Share my political views? Hahaha - you are the one that attacks anyone who doesn't blindly follow the Steve party whether they act like a Steve party or a Liberal party. As far as disrespect as you say - "meh". You can be a follower or you can question. I'd rather question.

Some posters are just here to stir things up without dealing specifically with issues other posters bring up.

Why would I answer your questions when you go out of the way to be disrespectul to Prime Minister Harper?

If you are asking for the respect of having your questions answered directly, then respect the fact that choosing to refer to the PM in such a disrespectful manner is quite the double standard.

You give what you get in life. I'll be more than willing to provide you with the answers you request when asked to do so in a respectful manner.

[Argus]

It will be an issue if the Tories can't budge from 29% support from women across the country according to the polls. They need higher numbers from that quarter to win their majority. The shut up and stop snivelling comment if presented as the policy of the Tories will go over well at the ballot box.

It looks very much like Harper is taking his cues to some extent from the Liberals, though - make feel-good noises, tell people what they want to hear, even if it doesn't make sense. I'm not sure he'll be willing to go as far in lying and distorting policy as the Liberals, or that he's as good at pretending he cares about things he cares nothing about, like Martin and Chretien did. But I'm sure he'll make the effort.

Liberals - the party of women - even though they haven't done one damned thing for women in twenty five years.

They're good at pretence, though. I don't think an election has passed in a generation where they haven't promised universal day care, for example, or cried crocodile tears about the "threat" to the national health care system they were letting fall apart.

[jdobbin]

It looks very much like Harper is taking his cues to some extent from the Liberals, though - make feel-good noises, tell people what they want to hear, even if it doesn't make sense. I'm not sure he'll be willing to go as far in lying and distorting policy as the Liberals, or that he's as good at pretending he cares about things he cares nothing about, like Martin and Chretien did. But I'm sure he'll make the effort.

I'm not sure that this is the ringing endorsement in favour of Harper: That he takes his cues from Liberals. I think a lot of the vote that went to the Tories was a result of people thinking he would be different. Even Mulroney had a better record of moving women into the inner cabinet. I certainly had no qualms on Mulroney's record. Nor did I say that that the Liberal record was stellar. However, when compared to Harper, there is no sign that he is attempting to do better than the Liberals did.

[Michael Bluth]

It looks very much like Harper is taking his cues to some extent from the Liberals, though - make feel-good noises, tell people what they want to hear, even if it doesn't make sense. I'm not sure he'll be willing to go as far in lying and distorting policy as the Liberals, or that he's as good at pretending he cares about things he cares nothing about, like Martin and Chretien did. But I'm sure he'll make the effort.

Liberals - the party of women - even though they haven't done one damned thing for women in twenty five years.

They're good at pretence, though. I don't think an election has passed in a generation where they haven't promised universal day care, for example, or cried crocodile tears about the "threat" to the national health care system they were letting fall apart.

The biggest cue Harper has taken from the Liberals is winning and holding power is the key. That is something I think he deserves the utmost of credit for learning. He was far too idealistic his first go round as an MP. Moral victories are for chumps!

I can't see him ever pretending to care about as many things as Martin did. I think Paul Martin's fatal flaw as PM was that in some small, bizarre way, a little bit of him cared about all those things he said he did. However, when you have 56 priorities you have none.

The Conservatives have been noticeably different from the Liberals. In a sad attempt to differntiate themselves the Liberals chose Stephane Dion as their leader. wtf were they thinking? Who knows, but it's all good for the Conservatives.

I believe Harper will be happy with whatever victory he earns in the next election. If it's a majority, great. If not, he has shown he can manage a minority Government and as long as he makes it clear that he won't lead the party into a succeeding election then he will be allowed to serve as leader and allow the Government to run its course.

[jbg]

Hahaha - you are the one that attacks anyone who doesn't blindly follow the Steve party whether they act like a Steve party or a Liberal party.

*****

Some posters are just here to stir things up without dealing specifically with issues other posters bring up.

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

[Michael Bluth]

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

Come on jbg. As an American who doesn't bash Stephen Harper incessantly how dare you think you have the right to post here?!!

[jdobbin]

Something that was missing from most observations on the cabinet changes was this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

OTTAWA -- Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has been moved from two key cabinet committee positions, losing both the chair of the economic growth and long-term prosperity committee and his vice-chairmanship of the Treasury Board committee, a position that has been traditionally held by finance ministers.

The Finance Minister met privately with the Prime Minister last Sunday, and despite intense speculation on Monday within Tory circles that Mr. Flaherty would be moved out of the Finance portfolio completely, his spokesman rejected such concerns yesterday.

"... He's not moving and I never had the sense that he was ever in the mix anyway," Chisholm Pothier said.

Nevertheless, the changes to the minister's position on the two committees was pointed out by another cabinet minister after the news media had missed the change.

"This is bad for him," said a Flaherty friend, who believes that Prime Minister Stephen Harper removed the minister from the cabinet committees to send a message that he is unhappy with Mr. Flaherty's performance.

I'm not sure what the significance is but I can't recall a time when the Finance minister wasn't vice-chair of Treasury Board since it is so significant to overall budget control.

[Michael Bluth]

I'm not sure what the significance is but I can't recall a time when the Finance minister wasn't vice-chair of Treasury Board since it is so significant to overall budget control.

Earlier you chastized the Government for not having women in prominent roles in Cabinet. But isn't having Rona Ambrose serve as the vice-chair of the Treasury Board a prominent position?

Or is the glass always half empty when you look at this Government?

[Fortunata]

Why would I answer your questions when you go out of the way to be disrespectul to Prime Minister Harper?

If you are asking for the respect of having your questions answered directly, then respect the fact that choosing to refer to the PM in such a disrespectful manner is quite the double standard.

You give what you get in life. I'll be more than willing to provide you with the answers you request when asked to do so in a respectful manner.

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.