Harper's Cabinet
Like any cabinet, it is neither 100% good nor 100% bad and although some hardcore partisans while argue one way or another, I thought I would give a fair analysis. Now note, my predictions could be totally off as with many inexperienced cabinet ministers who knows what kind of mistakes they will make. I thought Maxime Bernier and Gordon O'Connor would have been good picks last time around, but yet both were disasters. By the same token I thought Stockwell Day would have been a disaster, yet he at least stayed out of trouble to my surprise. Also, Harper is a real control freak, so my comments below only matter if he grants his cabinet ministers some independence, otherwise it is just window dressing. I was pleased there were more women and I felt the regional representation was good. I was also glad no senators were appointed like last time around and no floor crossers were appointed to cabinet. At the same time I thought there were a few who should have been demoted who weren't as I will explain below.
Of the Atlantic Canada ministers, nothing too surprising here. It was off course expected Gail Shea would go into cabinet since she is the only member from PEI and it would make sense for them to have some representation. I though do think that one of the existing senators from Newfoundland & Labrador could have gotten a junior post so they would also have representation. Harper's choice of two ministers in New Brunswick was certainly good political tactics, after all the province rewarded him with more seats so it would seem logical politically to give them another spot.
In Quebec, I was glad he didn't go overboard here. Despite the breakthrough last time around,the depth of talent was quite shallow. Only Lawrence Cannon had any talent. I am glad Josee Verner was demoted and I am glad Maxime Bernier was not appointed to cabinet. As for foreign affairs, I don't have a lot of confidence in Harper here, but I hope that with Lawrence Cannon being one of the more moderate members he can help moderate Harper on this. Also hopefully an Obama presidency will mean no allies for his policies and that more than anything will mean change.
In Ontario, there were both good and bad picks and some mixed. I think appointing Lisa Raitt to cabinet made sense, but natural resources was the wrong portfolio. The GTA is not exactly an area known for its natural resources. I think transport would have been a more appropriate one for her since beside her experience at the Toronto Port Authority, her riding is on the edge of the GTA and one of the fast growing in the country so transportation is a big issue for many people in her riding, especially considering a lot spend over an hour every day commuting into Toronto. Appointing Peter Kent to a junior post made sense as he doesn't have the experience to take any senior one, at the same time he was the closest they have to Toronto proper. I am disappointed Jim Flaherty wasn't shuffled out as finance minister as he has handled this portfolio poorly whether it be his reckless spending, calling Ontario the last place to invest, and the fact as provincial finance minister he left a $5.6 billion dollar deficit. I am glad Bev Oda, Peter Van Loan, and Diane Finley were demoted while disappointed Tony Clement and John Baird weren't demoted to lower level portfolios. In crisis times, we need people who can work together, not always be picking fights and fierce partisans as the Harrisites were. I think Jim Flaherty, John Baird, and Tony Clement should still be given cabinet posts, but lower level ones that don't involve dealing with others a lot.
In the Prairies, I was very disappointed Gerry Ritz was kept on as agriculture minister. His comments about Listeria were clearly enough to deserve a demotion. Yes, I realize he was a farmer himself, but I am sure there are others Harper could have tapped into. Despite the large number of MPs in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, this is probably the part of the country with the shallowest talent. Many are ex-Reformers who are populist and rather right wing. Although BC, Alberta, and Ontario have plenty of those two, at least they have some more moderate and knowledgeable ones too.
In the case of Alberta, I think Diane Ablonczy should have gotten a more senior post as she is one of the more talented members. Jim Prentice is definitely one of the brighter lights in the party and an improvement on the environment, although I doubt he will do as good a job here as his previous portfolios. Appointing Jason Kenney as immigration minister seemed more about party politics than public good. He got this mainly because he was successful in wooing many ethnic voters and helping the Tories breakthrough in these communities. But just because he maybe best for the party doesn't mean he is best for the country. I fail to understand why Rob Merrifield got a cabinet post. I don't think it is necessary to have a cabinet minister from Rural Alberta if none is qualified. Monte Solberg was clearly cabinet material while Rob Merrifield is not. Ted Menzies is the only rural Alberta MP who could potentially be a cabinet minister. In fact the two strongest rural MPs, Bob Mills and Monte Solbert both retired so not much talent in this region this time around.
In the case of British Columbia, I thought giving James Moore a promotion to a more senior post was good. In fact I fail to understand why it took so long for him to go into cabinet as he should have been in the very first cabinet in 2006. Gary Lunn should have been sacked from cabinet altogether, but at least a demotion is better than the status quo. Stockwell Day did an okay job as public safety minister and therefore should have stayed in that position. I think moving him to international trade was a bad choice. Although there are no obvious choices here, this is going to be an important file as protectionism become more prevalent in the United States. Not solely because of the Democrats gaining all three branches, but also Americans tend to be more protectionist during recessions in general, so we need someone who can work with the next administration.
In the case of the North, Leona Agulukkaq got the position of minister of health. As a representative from the North, female, and Inuit, she definitely deserved a cabinet post, but I am not sure if health was the right choice as this is a big responsibility. Yes, she has some experience here, although I am not sure if this should go to a rookie. Still I do hope she does make progress on the aboriginal health file as this has been neglected for much too long.
Of the Atlantic Canada ministers, nothing too surprising here. It was off course expected Gail Shea would go into cabinet since she is the only member from PEI and it would make sense for them to have some representation. I though do think that one of the existing senators from Newfoundland & Labrador could have gotten a junior post so they would also have representation. Harper's choice of two ministers in New Brunswick was certainly good political tactics, after all the province rewarded him with more seats so it would seem logical politically to give them another spot.
In Quebec, I was glad he didn't go overboard here. Despite the breakthrough last time around,the depth of talent was quite shallow. Only Lawrence Cannon had any talent. I am glad Josee Verner was demoted and I am glad Maxime Bernier was not appointed to cabinet. As for foreign affairs, I don't have a lot of confidence in Harper here, but I hope that with Lawrence Cannon being one of the more moderate members he can help moderate Harper on this. Also hopefully an Obama presidency will mean no allies for his policies and that more than anything will mean change.
In Ontario, there were both good and bad picks and some mixed. I think appointing Lisa Raitt to cabinet made sense, but natural resources was the wrong portfolio. The GTA is not exactly an area known for its natural resources. I think transport would have been a more appropriate one for her since beside her experience at the Toronto Port Authority, her riding is on the edge of the GTA and one of the fast growing in the country so transportation is a big issue for many people in her riding, especially considering a lot spend over an hour every day commuting into Toronto. Appointing Peter Kent to a junior post made sense as he doesn't have the experience to take any senior one, at the same time he was the closest they have to Toronto proper. I am disappointed Jim Flaherty wasn't shuffled out as finance minister as he has handled this portfolio poorly whether it be his reckless spending, calling Ontario the last place to invest, and the fact as provincial finance minister he left a $5.6 billion dollar deficit. I am glad Bev Oda, Peter Van Loan, and Diane Finley were demoted while disappointed Tony Clement and John Baird weren't demoted to lower level portfolios. In crisis times, we need people who can work together, not always be picking fights and fierce partisans as the Harrisites were. I think Jim Flaherty, John Baird, and Tony Clement should still be given cabinet posts, but lower level ones that don't involve dealing with others a lot.
In the Prairies, I was very disappointed Gerry Ritz was kept on as agriculture minister. His comments about Listeria were clearly enough to deserve a demotion. Yes, I realize he was a farmer himself, but I am sure there are others Harper could have tapped into. Despite the large number of MPs in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, this is probably the part of the country with the shallowest talent. Many are ex-Reformers who are populist and rather right wing. Although BC, Alberta, and Ontario have plenty of those two, at least they have some more moderate and knowledgeable ones too.
In the case of Alberta, I think Diane Ablonczy should have gotten a more senior post as she is one of the more talented members. Jim Prentice is definitely one of the brighter lights in the party and an improvement on the environment, although I doubt he will do as good a job here as his previous portfolios. Appointing Jason Kenney as immigration minister seemed more about party politics than public good. He got this mainly because he was successful in wooing many ethnic voters and helping the Tories breakthrough in these communities. But just because he maybe best for the party doesn't mean he is best for the country. I fail to understand why Rob Merrifield got a cabinet post. I don't think it is necessary to have a cabinet minister from Rural Alberta if none is qualified. Monte Solberg was clearly cabinet material while Rob Merrifield is not. Ted Menzies is the only rural Alberta MP who could potentially be a cabinet minister. In fact the two strongest rural MPs, Bob Mills and Monte Solbert both retired so not much talent in this region this time around.
In the case of British Columbia, I thought giving James Moore a promotion to a more senior post was good. In fact I fail to understand why it took so long for him to go into cabinet as he should have been in the very first cabinet in 2006. Gary Lunn should have been sacked from cabinet altogether, but at least a demotion is better than the status quo. Stockwell Day did an okay job as public safety minister and therefore should have stayed in that position. I think moving him to international trade was a bad choice. Although there are no obvious choices here, this is going to be an important file as protectionism become more prevalent in the United States. Not solely because of the Democrats gaining all three branches, but also Americans tend to be more protectionist during recessions in general, so we need someone who can work with the next administration.
In the case of the North, Leona Agulukkaq got the position of minister of health. As a representative from the North, female, and Inuit, she definitely deserved a cabinet post, but I am not sure if health was the right choice as this is a big responsibility. Yes, she has some experience here, although I am not sure if this should go to a rookie. Still I do hope she does make progress on the aboriginal health file as this has been neglected for much too long.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 4:50 PM
4 Comments:
Help moderate Harper? How much more moderate can he get without another party split like when Reform broke away?
Anonymous - A lot of Reformers were more populist than hard right wingers. The hard right in Canada is around 10% of the population, while as we have seen in the last few elections, the swing vote is much larger so for every hard right winger he loses, there are far more swing voters to pick up. It is not like the United States where the hard right makes up 25-30% of the population and can make a difference. In addition the 10% of hard right wingers are almost all in ridings the Tories won by landslides anyways. Areas such as the GTA, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, and Lower Mainland are mostly moderate types, otherwise the areas they are most vulnerable in and the areas they need to gain in are mostly people close to the centre.
I don't know about that - most would choose the real thing when the options are the fake Liberals and real Liberals. When the Conservatives were split, the old PC's never had more than 20 seats, while the Reform/Alliance never had less than 50 seats.
Anonymous - It is not just the PC vote that the Tories need to win a majority, they also need the Blue Liberal and the Conservative nationalist in Quebec and both those groups will not go for a party that is too ideological. Lets remember the Reform/Alliance, never won a seat in Atlantic Canada and Quebec while never more than 2 seats in Ontario, so that is writing off almost 2/3 of the country. In fact outside of a few rural Ontario ridings and the West asides from Winnipeg and the Lower Mainland, the ideological right is a non-starter elsewhere. That means over 200 seats in the country are not even in play and you cannot win when you are not competitive in over 200 seats. Unlike the US, the hard right is quite weak in Canada. This is partly due to the fact we are a very urbanized country despite our low population density and those types of policies don't sell well in urban areas. Also we are nowhere nearly as religious as Americans. Maybe more so than Europeans, but considerably less so than Americans, making social conservativism a tough sell. Likewise on economics, we didn't become a nation through revolution so we don't have the history of strong distrust in the government like Americans do thus libertarianism also has a far more limited appeal than in the US. Off course the far-right like they have in Europe is definitely a non-starter here when one considers Canadians like to pride themselves in being tolerant of others and welcoming, although I suspect you were not referring to this group.
I would argue the hard left is an equally tough sell in Canada which is partly why we are one of the few Western countries to have never had a socialist government. In fact most studies on Canadian attitudes show Canadians are some of the least ideological people in the developed world, meaning if you want to win you need to be close to the centre and pragmatic. Much of that can be traced to the idea of two languages and cultures founding Canada as well as the many others that have contributed since as well as the vast regional differences have created a culture of compromise and consensus as opposed to conquer and divide which is what the hard right and hard left parties generally use.
Post a Comment
<< Home