Harper's Cabinet
On the whole, the majority of picks were generally experienced, moderate, as well as a regionally balanced cabinet. However, there were three very bad picks and those bad picks more than outweigh all the good picks for cabinet, so I would say on the whole the Tories are off to a very bad start.
David Emerson: He is no doubt highly qualified for the ministerial position he was given, but I do have some serious reservations here. It is one thing to defect to another party due to a disagreement over their direction, but it is quite another thing to defect only two weeks after an election. I also think it is even more hypocritical to condemn people like Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach for defecting ot the Liberals, yet then turn around and do the same thing yourself. I understand Harper wanted representation from the three largest cities, but considering he choose Jim Flaherty to represent Toronto (Whitby-Oshawa is a good 45 minute drive east of Toronto), there is no reason why James Moore who is fully qualified, from the GVRD, and elected as a Conservative couldn't be a cabinet representative for Vancouver.
Michael Fortier: I am not opposed to making senators cabinet ministers, but appointing someone to the senate after clearly campaigning against senate appointments shows hypocricy. In addition, it should have been a junior cabinet post, not something as major as Public Works and Government Services. That person ought to be a member of the House of Commons. Had Harper been shut out of Quebec this may have made sense, but he won 10 seats in Quebec, so he should have chosen amongst them. As for the argument of not winning seats in Montreal, rather than ignoring the problem, the party should figure out why voters in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver rejected the Conservatives and then make the appropriate changes. Then next time around they would have representation from those cities.
Vic Toews: I am extremely concerned about his strong social conservatism. While I would have been okay if he was given a different cabinet post, I think having him as justice minister should be of great concern to people who value minority rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Hopefully the more moderate faces in cabinet help keep him in check.
As for the rest of the cabinet picks, most of them were decent ones, although one concern was lack of women. I understand that 22% of cabinet picks were women vs. only 12% of MPs were women, but while an improvement, it is still not good enough. That number needs to go up if Harper gets another shot at picking the cabinet.
As a final note I've heard the Tories first plan is to push through their child care allowance which all opposition parties oppose. I am no fan of the Liberal day care plan, but this is a minority government and Harper must understand he has no mandate to proceed on areas which don't have the support of at least one other party. He should instead bring forward a motion supporting the child care allowance and should it pass, then proceed, but if voted down in the House, then he can say to his supporters he tried, but failed. Hopefully some compromise is found on this. Harper should not assume the Liberals will blindly support all confidence votes simply due to fear of going to an election. The Liberals will try to cooperate, but stand by their principles. Minority governments made both sides making compromises, not just one.
David Emerson: He is no doubt highly qualified for the ministerial position he was given, but I do have some serious reservations here. It is one thing to defect to another party due to a disagreement over their direction, but it is quite another thing to defect only two weeks after an election. I also think it is even more hypocritical to condemn people like Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach for defecting ot the Liberals, yet then turn around and do the same thing yourself. I understand Harper wanted representation from the three largest cities, but considering he choose Jim Flaherty to represent Toronto (Whitby-Oshawa is a good 45 minute drive east of Toronto), there is no reason why James Moore who is fully qualified, from the GVRD, and elected as a Conservative couldn't be a cabinet representative for Vancouver.
Michael Fortier: I am not opposed to making senators cabinet ministers, but appointing someone to the senate after clearly campaigning against senate appointments shows hypocricy. In addition, it should have been a junior cabinet post, not something as major as Public Works and Government Services. That person ought to be a member of the House of Commons. Had Harper been shut out of Quebec this may have made sense, but he won 10 seats in Quebec, so he should have chosen amongst them. As for the argument of not winning seats in Montreal, rather than ignoring the problem, the party should figure out why voters in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver rejected the Conservatives and then make the appropriate changes. Then next time around they would have representation from those cities.
Vic Toews: I am extremely concerned about his strong social conservatism. While I would have been okay if he was given a different cabinet post, I think having him as justice minister should be of great concern to people who value minority rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Hopefully the more moderate faces in cabinet help keep him in check.
As for the rest of the cabinet picks, most of them were decent ones, although one concern was lack of women. I understand that 22% of cabinet picks were women vs. only 12% of MPs were women, but while an improvement, it is still not good enough. That number needs to go up if Harper gets another shot at picking the cabinet.
As a final note I've heard the Tories first plan is to push through their child care allowance which all opposition parties oppose. I am no fan of the Liberal day care plan, but this is a minority government and Harper must understand he has no mandate to proceed on areas which don't have the support of at least one other party. He should instead bring forward a motion supporting the child care allowance and should it pass, then proceed, but if voted down in the House, then he can say to his supporters he tried, but failed. Hopefully some compromise is found on this. Harper should not assume the Liberals will blindly support all confidence votes simply due to fear of going to an election. The Liberals will try to cooperate, but stand by their principles. Minority governments made both sides making compromises, not just one.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 5:21 PM
5 Comments:
So what percentage of women would you like to see in cabinet and why?
Are you suggesting some sort of quota?
I'm pretty conflicted over the David Emmerson defection and appointment.
Let's neither demonize nor applaud Belinda for waiting a year before defecting. I think we can all see that power, not ethics or morals drives what Belinda does.
On the other hand, conservatives did squeal and this is only margianally better because David Emmerson has, at least, some proven talent. Still, he ran as a Liberal and owes that to his election and I'm very uncomfortable with the conservatives accepting him into the fold - when not even a Question Period has occured since the election!
All that said, as an Albertan, I am delighted to see Harper add Pacific Gateway to the industry portfolio and have someone of Emmerson's talents lead it. In terms of responsibility, the pacific is exatcly the kind of thing the Liberals have always neglected. Asia is a market we should have been opening back before Nixon recognized Bejing. But it just wasn't sexy enough in Toronto to grab the Liberal's juvinille attention span.
All others, I'm okay with - neither fearful of the redneck boogeyman as you Miles, nor overly imprssed. It is a good geographical balance and gives both old reformers and new conservatives a voice. (and that's what it is - a voice - no more).
I see moderation in the political forcesat!
AB/BA
So, bad and good. Tactically, foloks will forget the bad, but if Emmerson delivers, remember the good.
Stephen Who?
On his very first day as PM, Stephen Harper showed clear signs of following in the footsteps of the bungling Joe Clark, who not only lost his luggage but succeeded in losing his bearings in Parliament as well. Like Joe, Harper seems to have forgotten that his is a minority government, not a majority one, and seems to have assumed – at great risk to his fledgling government – that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc will not oppose him and force another election for 12 to 18 months.
We shall see if that assumption is valid.
If an election is held soon, the Tories will start off with egg on their faces, due to Holier-than-thou Harper’s baffling judgment on Day One.
Why on earth did Harper harpoon his own left foot?
He did it once, with his turncoat-conversion and the Liberal into the cabinet before anyone can see it sleight of hand.
He did it twice, with his appointment of – among others – Stockwell Day to his cabinet, instead of more women, and more women it important posts. Does the other half of the population – women – not count in Stephen Who’s world?
He did it thrice, with his U-turn on an elected senate. Principles dumped for expediency?
He did it fourthly, with his appointment of a former lobbyist – and then breathtakingly wants to legislate against others being allowed to do the same.
He did it fifthly, with his introduction into Canada of the Karl Rovian doublespeak. Thanks to Stephen Who, Canadians can now also spend delightful hours parsing the speeches of politicians, to decipher just how they are being bamboozled.
What a beginning!
I wonder if he will last as long as Joe Who....
“He should instead bring forward a motion supporting the child care allowance and should it pass, then proceed, but if voted down in the House, then he can say to his supporters he tried, but failed”
The problem with this approach is that a government should not be in government if it just throws up legislation and has it repeatedly shot down. It is one thing for minor bills to not be confidence measures, but this is one of the five key planks you see on the PMO website.
It the House does not support the child care allowance then Harper does not have the confidence of the House. It would be an abuse of Parliamentary tradition to continue governing having had this critical policy measure defeated.
All 3 opposition parties would have to unite to bring him down on this. If there is such unity then surely someone from one of those parties can attract the confidence of the House instead.
Akbar - Yes I am in favour of some kind of quota. How about 50%. In Spain, 50% of cabinet ministers are women, although I would be fine with 30% since that is better than any previous administration. Government must be representative of the population and there are certain issues that are of more concern to women than men. Also we would have a more civilized parliament not to mention a lot of the radical right wing policies would never see the light of day if more women were involved.
Anonymous #2 - my point on the childcare is Stephen Harper has a minority government and so he should focus on getting something done that has the support of other parties. Party platforms are made on the assumption the party has a majority government, but in the event of a minority government all parties must do things differently. For those who say he has a mandate to proceed on the childcare allowance, I would argue he doesn't. He didn't win a majority government or the majority of the popular vote, he got a plurality of seats and votes but parties in favour of state-run daycares won the majority of seats and votes. I am simply pointing out that if he goes ahead here, we could see a government that is shorter than Joe Clark's minority. He cannot govern as if he has a majority.
Curiousitykilledthecat - great analysis. I like you think Harper has been a disaster so far and cannot wait to get another chance to vote him out.
Post a Comment
<< Home