Canadian Politics

[RichardE]

In a page going above and beyond the typical bashing of Repub and Dems in the States who stray from the party line, which will looked down on, can be beneficial to ones careers at times, and is also a allowed by the higher ups, who also allow critisism from there own caucus. Stephen Harper has decided that a tight controll on the Canadian Government in nowtallowing other opinions, or opinions that difer from his own strategy. If you differ from the party line, you will be publicly embarassed and moved from Cabinet.


So Harper is surrounding himself by yes man, people who fully support him and will not offer one disenting voice at all. Seems I can see why him and Bush get along so well. Sadly the apathy of Canadian Citizens will not catch onto this right now, hopefully the Liberals have enough sense left to make sure they use things like this in the next election.

canada news
Email this to a friend
print this page
Saturday, Apr 15, 2006
In Stephen Harper's tightly scripted government, loose lips can sink careers

Photo
full image
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks to reporters at the Land Force Western Area Training Centre, in Wainwright Alberta, on Thursday. (CP/John Ulan)
OTTAWA (CP) - Ministers in the new Conservative government have been warned they could be banned from travelling, publicly humiliated or even fired for verbal gaffes.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is determined not to have his agenda derailed and his ministers have been made aware they will face punishment for loose-lipped indiscretions.

Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, has given colleagues in ministers' offices stark warnings about varying sanctions for cabinet members who either embarrass or contradict the government in public, sources say.

The worst of those penalties - being dumped from cabinet, shuffled to another portfolio, or barred from official trips - have not been imposed yet.

But the lesser punishment of public embarrassment has been swiftly levelled on at least two cabinet ministers and one B.C. MP.

Desktops: Free Upgrade this week

All have been forced to publicly swallow their words in pride-pummeling mea culpas within hours of causing unwanted headlines.

"It's constant," one government official said of the pressure on ministers.

"The message comes from the top: if you (mess) up you will publicly and embarrassingly retract - no 'ifs,' 'ands' or 'buts.'

Hotels.ca - Find the Best Hotel Deals

"So stick to the party line, or you'll go out there and tell the whole world that you're a dumb (jerk) who screwed up."

Industry Minister Maxime Bernier became the latest victim this week. Bernier told a radio interviewer that Canada could lose its legal battle against the U.S., and that taxpayers shouldn't be left covering loan guarantees for the softwood industry.

At the urging of the Prime Minister's Office, he issued a press release to declare that his remarks on lumber did not reflect the views of either his government or even his own department.

"Mr. Bernier clarified his position," was all Harper said about his minister's comments.

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay has been on the job for just two months but has already been compelled to hold a news conference and issue a press release to clarify a pair of statements - one about hostages in Iraq and another about aid for the Hamas-led Palestinian government.

B.C. MP Colin Mayes quickly issued a press release to "retract without reservation" his suggestion that journalists should be jailed if they write misleading stories.

The prime minister's insistence on message discipline is longstanding and has been reinforced by his recent string of political successes.

He's won two leadership races, brought together rival parties, instilled discipline in a once-unruly caucus, and been victorious in a general election that began with him as the decided underdog.

One veteran MP said he doesn't feel muzzled, and suggested any discipline is self-imposed or just plain common sense.

"I do speak my mind and that's never changed," said Alberta MP Myron Thompson.

"I think we're all smart enough to know that when policy is developed, we're moving in one direction."

But several Tories privately admit they resent the tight leash.

Many MPs and ministers pride themselves as defenders of free expression - and few do it more ardently than old Reform party types who trace their political roots back to what was once a grassroots movement.

"It rankles because they're politicians and they want to talk," said a high-level Tory source.

"But they (Harper's aides) have succeeded in raising the stakes so high that people are afraid to step out of line."

One observer with close ties to the party agreed it might be difficult for politicians who feel they're being muzzled. But recent history vindicates Harper, says Faron Ellis.

"At each stage (Harper's) management style has been successful," said Ellis, a political scientist at Lethbridge Community College.

"Success bears repetition. (And) they see the utility in it because it works. They're playing along because it works."

Tories have watched the Liberals use a different style - and they have learned from their opponents' mistakes.

They watched Liberals self-destruct as MPs commented publicly on private meetings, staffers leaked confidential documents and the party fail to launch critical elements of their platform without journalists beating them to the punch.

The election-campaign controversies that did hit the Tories and Liberals this year provided a telling study in contrasts.

Liberals were battered by the income-trust scandal and word that the RCMP was investigating for criminal leaks of inside information. The Tories drew several unwanted headlines for the exact opposite reason: they resorted to near-comical lengths to impose silence.

Late in the campaign, one of their more socially conservative candidates scurried into a banquet-hall kitchen and attempted to conceal himself next to a dish rack in an unsuccessful bid to escape from reporters.

The stunt might have earned the party a little bad press. But it might have been less damaging than the musing about abortion, bilingualism, and the courts from some MPs that sank the party during the 2004 campaign.

The Conservatives are steadfastly sticking to what they see as a successful approach from 2006: keep Harper in the spotlight and shunt everyone with a history of verbal bloopers off to the sidelines.

Opponents might call it muzzling. Tories call it discipline.

"This job is not a game. It has to be done properly and professionally," said one government official.

"Canadians expect nothing less."

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=2229896

 

[techs]

Actually in the US it used to be "permissable" for members of Congress to jump the party line on an issue they felt strongly, or their constituency felt strongly about.
This changed in 2000 when Trent Lott and Dennis Hastert announced the Congress would be run by a Majority of the Majority.
In the Senate with 51 Republicans that mean whatever 26 wanted the other 25 better agree too. When Jeffords a Republican from Vermont split with the party on an issue he was made an example of. He was told he would be punished severly for the time the Republicans were in control. In response he left the Republcian party and became an independent.
Then when a Senator died and the Republicans again had a majority they enforced a party discipline NEVER before seen in American politics.
Seems our Canadian neighbors have imported our political strategy.
What is scary about the majority of the majority is that an overwhelming number of Senators, say 74 could feel one way on an issue, but the 26 would see to it their will would never happen.

 

[CanOWorms]

Canadians should already be used to that. All politicians have to stick to their allegiance to the Queen or they're looked down on.

 

[Stunt]

It's not surprising a diverse party like the Conservative party would ensure the party line is held. The party took a vote for example to keep the right of choice for abortion. Like the Liberal party, the conservatives have those who oppose this. Harper's goal is to supress these extremist views; as this was the reason he left the Reform party to begin with. Harper is far more progressive than the media make him out to be, and I respect his recent moves.

Although ruling with an iron fist is not something new in Canadian politics. Just look at all the Liberal members against same-sex marriage who were forced to vote for it or else they would lose their cabinet positions and be banned form the Liberal party. The same went for the New Democratic Party member who opposed same-sex marriage; she refused to vote on the matter as the NDP would have given her the boot.

Harper will be the best thing Canada has seen in a long time, I'm glad he is taking these actions early in the game.

 

[Cruise51]

Harper will be the worst thing Canada has seen in a long time, I'm not surprised he is taking these actions early in the game. Worked so well with the Republicans down here.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Cruise51
Harper will be the worst thing Canada has seen in a long time, I'm not surprised he is taking these actions early in the game. Worked so well with the Republicans down here.

Why will Harper be the worst thing for Canadians?
You realize almost every major paper in the country, and the economist (who endorsed Kerry) endorsed him. His policies are sound, relevant and popular. Instead of promising voters the world, he has stated 5 key goals for this session.

 

[Cruise51]

Yes, he has. However I think those goals will take priority over more important things. I think health care in Canada will be in danger of becoming what it is down here... A disgrace. I also think other helpfull programs will be chopped. Also from what I hear from people I Know up in Ontario, they feel like they are going to get shafted.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt
It's not surprising a diverse party like the Conservative party would ensure the party line is held. The party took a vote for example to keep the right of choice for abortion. Like the Liberal party, the conservatives have those who oppose this. Harper's goal is to supress these extremist views; as this was the reason he left the Reform party to begin with. Harper is far more progressive than the media make him out to be, and I respect his recent moves.

Although ruling with an iron fist is not something new in Canadian politics. Just look at all the Liberal members against same-sex marriage who were forced to vote for it or else they would lose their cabinet positions and be banned form the Liberal party. The same went for the New Democratic Party member who opposed same-sex marriage; she refused to vote on the matter as the NDP would have given her the boot.

Harper will be the best thing Canada has seen in a long time, I'm glad he is taking these actions early in the game.

But why is Stockwell Say in his cabinet, if he's so progressive?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
It's not surprising a diverse party like the Conservative party would ensure the party line is held. The party took a vote for example to keep the right of choice for abortion. Like the Liberal party, the conservatives have those who oppose this. Harper's goal is to supress these extremist views; as this was the reason he left the Reform party to begin with. Harper is far more progressive than the media make him out to be, and I respect his recent moves.

Although ruling with an iron fist is not something new in Canadian politics. Just look at all the Liberal members against same-sex marriage who were forced to vote for it or else they would lose their cabinet positions and be banned form the Liberal party. The same went for the New Democratic Party member who opposed same-sex marriage; she refused to vote on the matter as the NDP would have given her the boot.

Harper will be the best thing Canada has seen in a long time, I'm glad he is taking these actions early in the game.

But why is Stockwell Say in his cabinet, if he's so progressive?

Day has absolutely no power in the party; it was his social stance that drove Harper away from Reform. Harper only came back to get rid of the Alliance, he was never a member under Day.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
It's not surprising a diverse party like the Conservative party would ensure the party line is held. The party took a vote for example to keep the right of choice for abortion. Like the Liberal party, the conservatives have those who oppose this. Harper's goal is to supress these extremist views; as this was the reason he left the Reform party to begin with. Harper is far more progressive than the media make him out to be, and I respect his recent moves.

Although ruling with an iron fist is not something new in Canadian politics. Just look at all the Liberal members against same-sex marriage who were forced to vote for it or else they would lose their cabinet positions and be banned form the Liberal party. The same went for the New Democratic Party member who opposed same-sex marriage; she refused to vote on the matter as the NDP would have given her the boot.

Harper will be the best thing Canada has seen in a long time, I'm glad he is taking these actions early in the game.

But why is Stockwell Say in his cabinet, if he's so progressive?

Day has absolutely no power in the party; it was his social stance that drove Harper away from Reform. Harper only came back to get rid of the Alliance, he was never a member under Day.

So he's a minister because Harper is throwing Reform Party faithful a bone? I honestly can't undersand why you would make Stockwell Day a minister when your biggest barrier to actually winning an election is a severe credibility problem when it comes to how progressive you really are.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
It's not surprising a diverse party like the Conservative party would ensure the party line is held. The party took a vote for example to keep the right of choice for abortion. Like the Liberal party, the conservatives have those who oppose this. Harper's goal is to supress these extremist views; as this was the reason he left the Reform party to begin with. Harper is far more progressive than the media make him out to be, and I respect his recent moves.

Although ruling with an iron fist is not something new in Canadian politics. Just look at all the Liberal members against same-sex marriage who were forced to vote for it or else they would lose their cabinet positions and be banned form the Liberal party. The same went for the New Democratic Party member who opposed same-sex marriage; she refused to vote on the matter as the NDP would have given her the boot.

Harper will be the best thing Canada has seen in a long time, I'm glad he is taking these actions early in the game.

But why is Stockwell Say in his cabinet, if he's so progressive?

Day has absolutely no power in the party; it was his social stance that drove Harper away from Reform. Harper only came back to get rid of the Alliance, he was never a member under Day.

So he's a minister because Harper is throwing Reform Party faithful a bone? I honestly can't undersand why you would make Stockwell Day a minister when your biggest barrier to actually winning an election is a severe credibility problem when it comes to how progressive you really are.

He isn't throwing Reform a bone...he's putting a competent, intelligent, high profile person in an important role. His social views are having no effect on the party or his position; unless you can prove otherwise. You want Harper to flat out say what he really feels? That would be political suicide; this is precisely why the Liberals never committed themselves to an all out same-sex marriage debate. Half their backbenchers were against it, and cabinet was forced to vote for the bill even during a free vote!

Remember this is politics, and actions speak far greater than words. When Harper implements a social agenda out of step with Canadians, come find me

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
It's not surprising a diverse party like the Conservative party would ensure the party line is held. The party took a vote for example to keep the right of choice for abortion. Like the Liberal party, the conservatives have those who oppose this. Harper's goal is to supress these extremist views; as this was the reason he left the Reform party to begin with. Harper is far more progressive than the media make him out to be, and I respect his recent moves.

Although ruling with an iron fist is not something new in Canadian politics. Just look at all the Liberal members against same-sex marriage who were forced to vote for it or else they would lose their cabinet positions and be banned form the Liberal party. The same went for the New Democratic Party member who opposed same-sex marriage; she refused to vote on the matter as the NDP would have given her the boot.

Harper will be the best thing Canada has seen in a long time, I'm glad he is taking these actions early in the game.

But why is Stockwell Say in his cabinet, if he's so progressive?

Day has absolutely no power in the party; it was his social stance that drove Harper away from Reform. Harper only came back to get rid of the Alliance, he was never a member under Day.

So he's a minister because Harper is throwing Reform Party faithful a bone? I honestly can't undersand why you would make Stockwell Day a minister when your biggest barrier to actually winning an election is a severe credibility problem when it comes to how progressive you really are.

He isn't throwing Reform a bone...he's putting a competent, intelligent, high profile person in an important role. His social views are having no effect on the party or his position; unless you can prove otherwise. You want Harper to flat out say what he really feels? That would be political suicide; this is precisely why the Liberals never committed themselves to an all out same-sex marriage debate. Half their backbenchers were against it, and cabinet was forced to vote for the bill even during a free vote!

Remember this is politics, and actions speak far greater than words. When Harper implements a social agenda out of step with Canadians, come find me

I have a lot of trouble believing that there is so little talent in the CP as to make Stockwell Day, an unelected minister, and enticing and MP from another party necessary. (BTW, there's precendent for opposition MPs being ministers without switching parties)).

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I have a lot of trouble believing that there is so little talent in the CP as to make Stockwell Day, an unelected minister, and enticing and MP from another party necessary. (BTW, there's precendent for opposition MPs being ministers without switching parties)).

Stockwell Day was elected.

link
"He was easily re-elected to Parliament in both the 2004 and 2006 federal elections.

In February 2006 he was made the Minister of Public Safety in the Harper government and was sworn into the Privy Council when he joined the Cabinet of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on February 6th 2006."

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I have a lot of trouble believing that there is so little talent in the CP as to make Stockwell Day, an unelected minister, and enticing and MP from another party necessary. (BTW, there's precendent for opposition MPs being ministers without switching parties)).

Stockwell Day was elected.

link
"He was easily re-elected to Parliament in both the 2004 and 2006 federal elections.

In February 2006 he was made the Minister of Public Safety in the Harper government and was sworn into the Privy Council when he joined the Cabinet of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on February 6th 2006."

Very good; but there was one minister who wasn't elected.

As I said, there seems to be a serious talent deficit in the CP.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I have a lot of trouble believing that there is so little talent in the CP as to make Stockwell Day, an unelected minister, and enticing and MP from another party necessary. (BTW, there's precendent for opposition MPs being ministers without switching parties)).

Stockwell Day was elected.

link
"He was easily re-elected to Parliament in both the 2004 and 2006 federal elections.

In February 2006 he was made the Minister of Public Safety in the Harper government and was sworn into the Privy Council when he joined the Cabinet of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on February 6th 2006."

Very good; but there was one minister who wasn't elected.

As I said, there seems to be a serious talent deficit in the CP.

I feel there is the exact opposite.
Look at Harper's cabinet vs. Martin's cabinet. Harper has far more tallent than the liberals and has a lot of up and coming stars. The Liberals on the other hand have a bunch of has-beens who happened to not piss off Mr.Martin when he went trigger happy after Chretien.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I have a lot of trouble believing that there is so little talent in the CP as to make Stockwell Day, an unelected minister, and enticing and MP from another party necessary. (BTW, there's precendent for opposition MPs being ministers without switching parties)).

Stockwell Day was elected.

link
"He was easily re-elected to Parliament in both the 2004 and 2006 federal elections.

In February 2006 he was made the Minister of Public Safety in the Harper government and was sworn into the Privy Council when he joined the Cabinet of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on February 6th 2006."

Very good; but there was one minister who wasn't elected.

As I said, there seems to be a serious talent deficit in the CP.

I feel there is the exact opposite.
Look at Harper's cabinet vs. Martin's cabinet. Harper has far more tallent than the liberals and has a lot of up and coming stars. The Liberals on the other hand have a bunch of has-beens who happened to not piss off Mr.Martin when he went trigger happy after Chretien.

And yet not enough talent to avoid appointing an unelected minister (with no intention of running for election!) after Harper made complete unambiguous statements regarding the acceptability of such appointments.

Not enough to avoid bringing a memeber of another party across the floor (there is, of course precedent for opposition MPs being ministers, especially in monority governments, but Emerson had to cross to get the cookie).

Not enough to avoid Stockwell Day being a minister.

This is Harper's chance to prove to Canadians that he is the progressive, moderate leader you claim he is; but he's not doing a good job so far.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I have a lot of trouble believing that there is so little talent in the CP as to make Stockwell Day, an unelected minister, and enticing and MP from another party necessary. (BTW, there's precendent for opposition MPs being ministers without switching parties)).

Stockwell Day was elected.

link
"He was easily re-elected to Parliament in both the 2004 and 2006 federal elections.

In February 2006 he was made the Minister of Public Safety in the Harper government and was sworn into the Privy Council when he joined the Cabinet of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on February 6th 2006."

Very good; but there was one minister who wasn't elected.

As I said, there seems to be a serious talent deficit in the CP.

I feel there is the exact opposite.
Look at Harper's cabinet vs. Martin's cabinet. Harper has far more tallent than the liberals and has a lot of up and coming stars. The Liberals on the other hand have a bunch of has-beens who happened to not piss off Mr.Martin when he went trigger happy after Chretien.

And yet not enough talent to avoid appointing an unelected minister (with no intention of running for election!) after Harper made complete unambiguous statements regarding the acceptability of such appointments.

Not enough to avoid bringing a memeber of another party across the floor (there is, of course precedent for opposition MPs being ministers, especially in monority governments, but Emerson had to cross to get the cookie).

Not enough to avoid Stockwell Day being a minister.

This is Harper's chance to prove to Canadians that he is the progressive, moderate leader you claim he is; but he's not doing a good job so far.

a) Harper wanted a minister to represent Canada's 2nd largest city, as he did not win there. In a democracy I don't know how you can complain.
b) Emerson has the right to cross the floor, he is highly qualified, and will serve Canada well.
c) Stockwell is again a very smart and qualified individual. His social stance is less than ideal, but he does not make the party's social policy. If you can think of a reason why Day is not qualified to be minister, or what a person in his position could do wrong (as you seem to think he is not a good minister)
d) Harper's track record will show his progressive social values. Reading the party platform will help you understand your misperceptions.

 

[desy]

I don't have a problem with Stock
I don't have a problem with Emmerson
I do have a problem with the appointment although of an un-elected person from Quebec.
I know why he did it ,he wanted to show Quebec he is willing to go the xtra mile and that even bothers me more. Yes you have to create an option against the block that isn't Liberal since they have no credibility there but I think the message to the rest of Canada is dire.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I have a lot of trouble believing that there is so little talent in the CP as to make Stockwell Day, an unelected minister, and enticing and MP from another party necessary. (BTW, there's precendent for opposition MPs being ministers without switching parties)).

Stockwell Day was elected.

link
"He was easily re-elected to Parliament in both the 2004 and 2006 federal elections.

In February 2006 he was made the Minister of Public Safety in the Harper government and was sworn into the Privy Council when he joined the Cabinet of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on February 6th 2006."

Very good; but there was one minister who wasn't elected.

As I said, there seems to be a serious talent deficit in the CP.

I feel there is the exact opposite.
Look at Harper's cabinet vs. Martin's cabinet. Harper has far more tallent than the liberals and has a lot of up and coming stars. The Liberals on the other hand have a bunch of has-beens who happened to not piss off Mr.Martin when he went trigger happy after Chretien.

And yet not enough talent to avoid appointing an unelected minister (with no intention of running for election!) after Harper made complete unambiguous statements regarding the acceptability of such appointments.

Not enough to avoid bringing a memeber of another party across the floor (there is, of course precedent for opposition MPs being ministers, especially in monority governments, but Emerson had to cross to get the cookie).

Not enough to avoid Stockwell Day being a minister.

This is Harper's chance to prove to Canadians that he is the progressive, moderate leader you claim he is; but he's not doing a good job so far.

a) Harper wanted a minister to represent Canada's 2nd largest city, as he did not win there. In a democracy I don't know how you can complain.
b) Emerson has the right to cross the floor, he is highly qualified, and will serve Canada well.
c) Stockwell is again a very smart and qualified individual. His social stance is less than ideal, but he does not make the party's social policy. If you can think of a reason why Day is not qualified to be minister, or what a person in his position could do wrong (as you seem to think he is not a good minister)
d) Harper's track record will show his progressive social values. Reading the party platform will help you understand your misperceptions.

Maybe he should have talked to one of the elected MPs from that city, about being ministers. I believe Harper's statement was 'to become a minister, you have to be elected', and I'm still waiting, months later, for an explanation as to why this statement isamiguous enough to be consistent with appointing an unelected minister.

Emerson is allowed to cross the floor, as is anyone. Of course, Emerson didn't cross the floor, since he never sat as a Liberal after the most recent election. An investigation found evidence of unethical activity (for example, that he had always planned to cross the floor), so while it's a little stinky, it is perhaps all smell, and no substance.

Stockwell Day represents Reform party ideas, and always will. If you want to convince someone like me to vote for your party, handing out high profile positions to former leaders of the one party I would never have voted for isn't such a hot move. You don't seem to grasp this at all - Day may be 'qualified' and 'talented' but he is also tainted; there's nothing wrong with making him a minister excep that it's a stupid move, politically.

Harper's track record is about 4 months long.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I have a lot of trouble believing that there is so little talent in the CP as to make Stockwell Day, an unelected minister, and enticing and MP from another party necessary. (BTW, there's precendent for opposition MPs being ministers without switching parties)).

Stockwell Day was elected.

link
"He was easily re-elected to Parliament in both the 2004 and 2006 federal elections.

In February 2006 he was made the Minister of Public Safety in the Harper government and was sworn into the Privy Council when he joined the Cabinet of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on February 6th 2006."

Very good; but there was one minister who wasn't elected.

As I said, there seems to be a serious talent deficit in the CP.

I feel there is the exact opposite.
Look at Harper's cabinet vs. Martin's cabinet. Harper has far more tallent than the liberals and has a lot of up and coming stars. The Liberals on the other hand have a bunch of has-beens who happened to not piss off Mr.Martin when he went trigger happy after Chretien.

And yet not enough talent to avoid appointing an unelected minister (with no intention of running for election!) after Harper made complete unambiguous statements regarding the acceptability of such appointments.

Not enough to avoid bringing a memeber of another party across the floor (there is, of course precedent for opposition MPs being ministers, especially in monority governments, but Emerson had to cross to get the cookie).

Not enough to avoid Stockwell Day being a minister.

This is Harper's chance to prove to Canadians that he is the progressive, moderate leader you claim he is; but he's not doing a good job so far.

a) Harper wanted a minister to represent Canada's 2nd largest city, as he did not win there. In a democracy I don't know how you can complain.
b) Emerson has the right to cross the floor, he is highly qualified, and will serve Canada well.
c) Stockwell is again a very smart and qualified individual. His social stance is less than ideal, but he does not make the party's social policy. If you can think of a reason why Day is not qualified to be minister, or what a person in his position could do wrong (as you seem to think he is not a good minister)
d) Harper's track record will show his progressive social values. Reading the party platform will help you understand your misperceptions.

Maybe he should have talked to one of the elected MPs from that city, about being ministers. I believe Harper's statement was 'to become a minister, you have to be elected', and I'm still waiting, months later, for an explanation as to why this statement isamiguous enough to be consistent with appointing an unelected minister.

Emerson is allowed to cross the floor, as is anyone. Of course, Emerson didn't cross the floor, since he never sat as a Liberal after the most recent election. An investigation found evidence of unethical activity (for example, that he had always planned to cross the floor), so while it's a little stinky, it is perhaps all smell, and no substance.

Stockwell Day represents Reform party ideas, and always will. If you want to convince someone like me to vote for your party, handing out high profile positions to former leaders of the one party I would never have voted for isn't such a hot move. You don't seem to grasp this at all - Day may be 'qualified' and 'talented' but he is also tainted; there's nothing wrong with making him a minister excep that it's a stupid move, politically.

Harper's track record is about 4 months long.

a) The conservatives did not win any seats in Montreal, so he couldn't use "elected MP's from that city", get your facts straight. Ideally a minister should be elected, but for the sake of representation and democracy I will not hold that against him.

b) Emerson sat as a Liberal for a whole term under Martin's government and was a minister under that government. Therefore he did cross the floor; I think it was a good gesture to show Harper's moderate agenda and willingness for parties to work together this session. The government now is weaker than it was, it's time to get stuff done...something Martin was never able to do.

c) Reform's policies were moderate and reasonable; because it was a new party it attracted the social conservative/regressive crowd, this has been very common in history...no matter if it was left or right wing. Take a look at some of the new parties the NDP was born out of, they had socially questionable positions. Stockwell did bring out the worst in the party with the Alliance, but so would have Elsie Wayne in the PC party. He should not be the one creating social policy and he is not. Much like the many Liberal MPs against same-sex marriage, abortion, and kyoto. I really can't understand why you bother spending so much time nit-picking the most irrelevant issues; if all you can complain about is the social stance of a member with no control over social policy...Harper MUST be doing a good job so far.

d) Harper's track record is much longer than 4months. Either way, the Canadian people gave him a mandate and he is our prime minister, and time will prove your misperceptions wrong. He will pass the 5 items he promised and people will see a government with focus, results, and promises kept (even in a minority).

Try doing some reading and don't fall for the Liberal fear campaign (these guys are so much like republicans it's not even funny).

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I have a lot of trouble believing that there is so little talent in the CP as to make Stockwell Day, an unelected minister, and enticing and MP from another party necessary. (BTW, there's precendent for opposition MPs being ministers without switching parties)).

Stockwell Day was elected.

link
"He was easily re-elected to Parliament in both the 2004 and 2006 federal elections.

In February 2006 he was made the Minister of Public Safety in the Harper government and was sworn into the Privy Council when he joined the Cabinet of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on February 6th 2006."

Very good; but there was one minister who wasn't elected.

As I said, there seems to be a serious talent deficit in the CP.

I feel there is the exact opposite.
Look at Harper's cabinet vs. Martin's cabinet. Harper has far more tallent than the liberals and has a lot of up and coming stars. The Liberals on the other hand have a bunch of has-beens who happened to not piss off Mr.Martin when he went trigger happy after Chretien.

And yet not enough talent to avoid appointing an unelected minister (with no intention of running for election!) after Harper made complete unambiguous statements regarding the acceptability of such appointments.

Not enough to avoid bringing a memeber of another party across the floor (there is, of course precedent for opposition MPs being ministers, especially in monority governments, but Emerson had to cross to get the cookie).

Not enough to avoid Stockwell Day being a minister.

This is Harper's chance to prove to Canadians that he is the progressive, moderate leader you claim he is; but he's not doing a good job so far.

a) Harper wanted a minister to represent Canada's 2nd largest city, as he did not win there. In a democracy I don't know how you can complain.
b) Emerson has the right to cross the floor, he is highly qualified, and will serve Canada well.
c) Stockwell is again a very smart and qualified individual. His social stance is less than ideal, but he does not make the party's social policy. If you can think of a reason why Day is not qualified to be minister, or what a person in his position could do wrong (as you seem to think he is not a good minister)
d) Harper's track record will show his progressive social values. Reading the party platform will help you understand your misperceptions.

Maybe he should have talked to one of the elected MPs from that city, about being ministers. I believe Harper's statement was 'to become a minister, you have to be elected', and I'm still waiting, months later, for an explanation as to why this statement isamiguous enough to be consistent with appointing an unelected minister.

Emerson is allowed to cross the floor, as is anyone. Of course, Emerson didn't cross the floor, since he never sat as a Liberal after the most recent election. An investigation found evidence of unethical activity (for example, that he had always planned to cross the floor), so while it's a little stinky, it is perhaps all smell, and no substance.

Stockwell Day represents Reform party ideas, and always will. If you want to convince someone like me to vote for your party, handing out high profile positions to former leaders of the one party I would never have voted for isn't such a hot move. You don't seem to grasp this at all - Day may be 'qualified' and 'talented' but he is also tainted; there's nothing wrong with making him a minister excep that it's a stupid move, politically.

Harper's track record is about 4 months long.

a) The conservatives did not win any seats in Montreal, so he couldn't use "elected MP's from that city", get your facts straight. Ideally a minister should be elected, but for the sake of representation and democracy I will not hold that against him.

Yes, he could. This is the fourth time in this thread I have mentioned that ministers from opposition parties are both perfectly legal, and have been used in the past. If Harper really wanted somone to represent Montreal, he should have spoken to someone that won a seat in Montreal.

b) Emerson sat as a Liberal for a whole term under Martin's government and was a minister under that government. Therefore he did cross the floor; I think it was a good gesture to show Harper's moderate agenda and willingness for parties to work together this session. The government now is weaker than it was, it's time to get stuff done...something Martin was never able to do.

Martin proposed a budget that every party was willing to work with; then Harper got stars in his eyes, and the drama of the election run-up began; at least as much blame for 'nothing getting done' rests with Harper as with Martin.

As for Emerson, he was elected in 2006 as a Liberal, and never once sat as a Liberal after the election. This is not really 'crossing the floor'. I've said before that it is probably 'acceptable' but it sure has an odour to it. You're the one who thinks Emerson disenfranchising his voters is a good thing for Canada, and Stronach doing the same was somehow detestable.

c) Reform's policies were moderate and reasonable; because it was a new party it attracted the social conservative/regressive crowd, this has been very common in history...no matter if it was left or right wing. Take a look at some of the new parties the NDP was born out of, they had socially questionable positions. Stockwell did bring out the worst in the party with the Alliance, but so would have Elsie Wayne in the PC party. He should not be the one creating social policy and he is not. Much like the many Liberal MPs against same-sex marriage, abortion, and kyoto. I really can't understand why you bother spending so much time nit-picking the most irrelevant issues; if all you can complain about is the social stance of a member with no control over social policy...Harper MUST be doing a good job so far.

Reform's policies were reasonable? The immigration policies? The social policies? Unless you're a big fan of neo-liberalism, social repression, and a globalism true-believer (which is accurate for you on the first and third counts) then Reform wasn't reasonable, and they weren't moderate by any definition.

d) Harper's track record is much longer than 4months. Either way, the Canadian people gave him a mandate and he is our prime minister, and time will prove your misperceptions wrong. He will pass the 5 items he promised and people will see a government with focus, results, and promises kept (even in a minority).

Try doing some reading and don't fall for the Liberal fear campaign (these guys are so much like republicans it's not even funny).

HAHAHA anyone else notice that the CBC seems to need to cut their budget? 13 years they were permitted to blast the Liberals on federal money, and it seems maybe Harper doesn't like that.

Harper's history as a leader includes an election blown when he said what he really thought about social policy, a naked power grab over Gomery, selling out his own stated principles when he formed his cabinet, and not much else.

This isn't a 'Liberal fear campaign' I'm perfectly capable of disliking and distrusting Harper all on my own.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
a) The conservatives did not win any seats in Montreal, so he couldn't use "elected MP's from that city", get your facts straight. Ideally a minister should be elected, but for the sake of representation and democracy I will not hold that against him.

Yes, he could. This is the fourth time in this thread I have mentioned that ministers from opposition parties are both perfectly legal, and have been used in the past. If Harper really wanted somone to represent Montreal, he should have spoken to someone that won a seat in Montreal.

b) Emerson sat as a Liberal for a whole term under Martin's government and was a minister under that government. Therefore he did cross the floor; I think it was a good gesture to show Harper's moderate agenda and willingness for parties to work together this session. The government now is weaker than it was, it's time to get stuff done...something Martin was never able to do.

Martin proposed a budget that every party was willing to work with; then Harper got stars in his eyes, and the drama of the election run-up began; at least as much blame for 'nothing getting done' rests with Harper as with Martin.

As for Emerson, he was elected in 2006 as a Liberal, and never once sat as a Liberal after the election. This is not really 'crossing the floor'. I've said before that it is probably 'acceptable' but it sure has an odour to it. You're the one who thinks Emerson disenfranchising his voters is a good thing for Canada, and Stronach doing the same was somehow detestable.

c) Reform's policies were moderate and reasonable; because it was a new party it attracted the social conservative/regressive crowd, this has been very common in history...no matter if it was left or right wing. Take a look at some of the new parties the NDP was born out of, they had socially questionable positions. Stockwell did bring out the worst in the party with the Alliance, but so would have Elsie Wayne in the PC party. He should not be the one creating social policy and he is not. Much like the many Liberal MPs against same-sex marriage, abortion, and kyoto. I really can't understand why you bother spending so much time nit-picking the most irrelevant issues; if all you can complain about is the social stance of a member with no control over social policy...Harper MUST be doing a good job so far.

Reform's policies were reasonable? The immigration policies? The social policies? Unless you're a big fan of neo-liberalism, social repression, and a globalism true-believer (which is accurate for you on the first and third counts) then Reform wasn't reasonable, and they weren't moderate by any definition.

d) Harper's track record is much longer than 4months. Either way, the Canadian people gave him a mandate and he is our prime minister, and time will prove your misperceptions wrong. He will pass the 5 items he promised and people will see a government with focus, results, and promises kept (even in a minority).

Try doing some reading and don't fall for the Liberal fear campaign (these guys are so much like republicans it's not even funny).

HAHAHA anyone else notice that the CBC seems to need to cut their budget? 13 years they were permitted to blast the Liberals on federal money, and it seems maybe Harper doesn't like that.

Harper's history as a leader includes an election blown when he said what he really thought about social policy, a naked power grab over Gomery, selling out his own stated principles when he formed his cabinet, and not much else.

This isn't a 'Liberal fear campaign' I'm perfectly capable of disliking and distrusting Harper all on my own.

a) We have a great line up of ministers and Harper's new govenment has a 40% approval rating with Liberals! More people like what Harper has done so far than any Prime Minister in recent history. Just pointing out how out of touch you are with Canadian voters.

b) Emerson was a Liberal, he sat as one during Martin's term. To say he didn't sit as one is spinning a technicality. The 2006 election did little to change the house of commons other than the Liberals and Conservatives changed positions. I saw Emerson's move as a non-partisan gesture to show Harper was not as bad as all the nutty Liberals and NDPers think. Of course you have your own opinion on the matter, and that's not going to change.

c) You have no idea what you are talking about, go get me the Reform party platform and show me the "social repression". You have no clue about Reform other than what the Liberals have told you; try doing some reserach.

d) "naked power grab"; last time I checked every last party except the Liberals voted down the House of Commons. This should not be blamed on the Conservatives, of course you will because of your blind hate for them; but that's your problem. The Conservatives had one consistent position: the Liberals were unfit to govern, and they were right...it just took the NDP a bit long as the Liberals were tired of giving them cash handouts for their support. Government would have fallen a long time ago if the NDP wasn't bribed. Needless to say, blaming Conservatives for the fall isn't entirely true, but now they command the support of most Canadians, Conservatives and half of all Liberals. Too bad for you 3chord

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Stunt
a) The conservatives did not win any seats in Montreal, so he couldn't use "elected MP's from that city", get your facts straight. Ideally a minister should be elected, but for the sake of representation and democracy I will not hold that against him.

Yes, he could. This is the fourth time in this thread I have mentioned that ministers from opposition parties are both perfectly legal, and have been used in the past. If Harper really wanted somone to represent Montreal, he should have spoken to someone that won a seat in Montreal.

b) Emerson sat as a Liberal for a whole term under Martin's government and was a minister under that government. Therefore he did cross the floor; I think it was a good gesture to show Harper's moderate agenda and willingness for parties to work together this session. The government now is weaker than it was, it's time to get stuff done...something Martin was never able to do.

Martin proposed a budget that every party was willing to work with; then Harper got stars in his eyes, and the drama of the election run-up began; at least as much blame for 'nothing getting done' rests with Harper as with Martin.

As for Emerson, he was elected in 2006 as a Liberal, and never once sat as a Liberal after the election. This is not really 'crossing the floor'. I've said before that it is probably 'acceptable' but it sure has an odour to it. You're the one who thinks Emerson disenfranchising his voters is a good thing for Canada, and Stronach doing the same was somehow detestable.

c) Reform's policies were moderate and reasonable; because it was a new party it attracted the social conservative/regressive crowd, this has been very common in history...no matter if it was left or right wing. Take a look at some of the new parties the NDP was born out of, they had socially questionable positions. Stockwell did bring out the worst in the party with the Alliance, but so would have Elsie Wayne in the PC party. He should not be the one creating social policy and he is not. Much like the many Liberal MPs against same-sex marriage, abortion, and kyoto. I really can't understand why you bother spending so much time nit-picking the most irrelevant issues; if all you can complain about is the social stance of a member with no control over social policy...Harper MUST be doing a good job so far.

Reform's policies were reasonable? The immigration policies? The social policies? Unless you're a big fan of neo-liberalism, social repression, and a globalism true-believer (which is accurate for you on the first and third counts) then Reform wasn't reasonable, and they weren't moderate by any definition.

d) Harper's track record is much longer than 4months. Either way, the Canadian people gave him a mandate and he is our prime minister, and time will prove your misperceptions wrong. He will pass the 5 items he promised and people will see a government with focus, results, and promises kept (even in a minority).

Try doing some reading and don't fall for the Liberal fear campaign (these guys are so much like republicans it's not even funny).

HAHAHA anyone else notice that the CBC seems to need to cut their budget? 13 years they were permitted to blast the Liberals on federal money, and it seems maybe Harper doesn't like that.

Harper's history as a leader includes an election blown when he said what he really thought about social policy, a naked power grab over Gomery, selling out his own stated principles when he formed his cabinet, and not much else.

This isn't a 'Liberal fear campaign' I'm perfectly capable of disliking and distrusting Harper all on my own.

a) We have a great line up of ministers and Harper's new govenment has a 40% approval rating with Liberals! More people like what Harper has done so far than any Prime Minister in recent history. Just pointing out how out of touch you are with Canadian voters.

b) Emerson was a Liberal, he sat as one during Martin's term. To say he didn't sit as one is spinning a technicality. The 2006 election did little to change the house of commons other than the Liberals and Conservatives changed positions. I saw Emerson's move as a non-partisan gesture to show Harper was not as bad as all the nutty Liberals and NDPers think. Of course you have your own opinion on the matter, and that's not going to change.

c) You have no idea what you are talking about, go get me the Reform party platform and show me the "social repression". You have no clue about Reform other than what the Liberals have told you; try doing some reserach.

d) "naked power grab"; last time I checked every last party except the Liberals voted down the House of Commons. This should not be blamed on the Conservatives, of course you will because of your blind hate for them; but that's your problem. The Conservatives had one consistent position: the Liberals were unfit to govern, and they were right...it just took the NDP a bit long as the Liberals were tired of giving them cash handouts for their support. Government would have fallen a long time ago if the NDP wasn't bribed. Needless to say, blaming Conservatives for the fall isn't entirely true, but now they command the support of most Canadians, Conservatives and half of all Liberals. Too bad for you 3chord

How good the lineup of ministers is doesn't change the fact that Harper appointed an unelected minister, and, I believe, plans to put him in the senate, despite rejecting both unelected ministers and appointed senators in the past. This is called hypocrisy.

Emerson as a Conservative is fine; I'm mostly waiting for you to acknowledge that there is no way you can support Emerson, and continue to call Stronach a traitor and other assorted dirty names.

Have a look at Reform/Alliance social policies, immigration policies, etc. They were not a moderate party, period. Joe Clark's PCs and Chretiens Liberals were moderates; Manning and Day were not.

The government would have fallen because Harper went for the power grab; previous to that, every party including the CP was in favour of the MArtin budget, and the NDP felt no need to be 'bribed'. Your sense of (recent) history is highly skewed.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
How good the lineup of ministers is doesn't change the fact that Harper appointed an unelected minister, and, I believe, plans to put him in the senate, despite rejecting both unelected ministers and appointed senators in the past. This is called hypocrisy.

Emerson as a Conservative is fine; I'm mostly waiting for you to acknowledge that there is no way you can support Emerson, and continue to call Stronach a traitor and other assorted dirty names.

Have a look at Reform/Alliance social policies, immigration policies, etc. They were not a moderate party, period. Joe Clark's PCs and Chretiens Liberals were moderates; Manning and Day were not.

The government would have fallen because Harper went for the power grab; previous to that, every party including the CP was in favour of the MArtin budget, and the NDP felt no need to be 'bribed'. Your sense of (recent) history is highly skewed.

a) So you are admitting the lineup of ministers was good? I thought it was so bad they had to pick Day?

b) While the physical actions of Stronach and Emerson were similar, the motives were not; and that's why there is a crucial difference.

c) Still waiting on policies...not just Liberal misperceptions and assumptions.

d) Can you not admit all the parties brought the house of commons down? The only reason the house didnt fall earlier was because of the back room, last minute NDP deal. You cannot blame the conservatives for the election, try the MAJORITY of the MP's and parties. Funny to see you still whining about your beloved Liberal minority who got absolutely nothing done. The Conservatives are in the same position and watch how much they get done; its called good policy.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
How good the lineup of ministers is doesn't change the fact that Harper appointed an unelected minister, and, I believe, plans to put him in the senate, despite rejecting both unelected ministers and appointed senators in the past. This is called hypocrisy.

Emerson as a Conservative is fine; I'm mostly waiting for you to acknowledge that there is no way you can support Emerson, and continue to call Stronach a traitor and other assorted dirty names.

Have a look at Reform/Alliance social policies, immigration policies, etc. They were not a moderate party, period. Joe Clark's PCs and Chretiens Liberals were moderates; Manning and Day were not.

The government would have fallen because Harper went for the power grab; previous to that, every party including the CP was in favour of the MArtin budget, and the NDP felt no need to be 'bribed'. Your sense of (recent) history is highly skewed.

a) So you are admitting the lineup of ministers was good? I thought it was so bad they had to pick Day?

b) While the physical actions of Stronach and Emerson were similar, the motives were not; and that's why there is a crucial difference.

c) Still waiting on policies...not just Liberal misperceptions and assumptions.

d) Can you not admit all the parties brought the house of commons down? The only reason the house didnt fall earlier was because of the back room, last minute NDP deal. You cannot blame the conservatives for the election, try the MAJORITY of the MP's and parties. Funny to see you still whining about your beloved Liberal minority who got absolutely nothing done. The Conservatives are in the same position and watch how much they get done; its called good policy.

I didn't say the cabinet was good, though it's certainly not awful, but I stand completely behind my three criticisms of the choices; one created the appearance of scandal, whether justified or not, one is a terrible idea for a 'moderate' party, and the third is a selling out of Harper's stated principles.

I'm not sure how you became privy to the motivations of Stronach and Emerson, but I should point out that whe the CP stated their support for the Liberal budget, Stronach didn't seem to be unhappy; if anything, the deal was a respnse to Harper's naked power grab, and the resulting impression that many of us had that Harper was more interested in being PM than in doing what was best for the country, or what people wanted. Remember for all your polls that most Canadians did not want an early election, and preferred Martin's promise of an election after the second Gomery report, which I might add was released on time.

The reform party was a neo-liberal party, with definite stances on things like gay marriage and abortion rights, and immigration policies not consistent with the values of Canadians. I'm willing to entertain your claim that Harper didn't support the same degree of restricted social policy as Day, though his comments in his first election campaign as leader make your claim seem suspect. Trying to backtrack further and claim that Reform was a moderate platform is silly.

Of course all the parties brought the Liberal government down. But it was Harper who triggered the election, not in november, but when he backed off of what he called a good budget, and started the whole process of the NDP deal, and the rest. His decision at that time cost Canadians $4 billion+ dollars in useless social spending. The only reason parliament stalled was because Harper saw adscam (an overblown scandal if there ever was one, though certainly worthy of investigation - which Martin initiated immediately) as a chance to trigger an election under favourable circumstances. On the day the Liberal minority introduced their budget, with full support from the other parties, they certainly were on their way to getting much more than 'nothing' done. When you manage to introduce a balanced budget, that all parties can live with, I think that's indicative of good policy; 'policy' is not why the Liberal government was defeated, so you can stop pretending it was.