February 6th, 2006

Filed under:
Politics
6 Comments »

Quick Thoughts on Our New Cabinet

Stephen Harper named his cabinet this morning. Some random thoughts:

  • 6 of 27 cabinet ministers are women. That’s almost the same ratio as in
    Paul Martin’s outgoing cabinet.
  • The average age of cabinet ministers is 51.
  • I was relieved that nutty Stockwell Day didn’t get a higher profile position.
    Mind you, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has a worryingly
    Orwellian ring to it, doesn’t it?
  • Is there a lamer post than Minister for International Cooperation? Does
    this minister produce Up with People
    shows?
  • If I’d voted for David Emerson two weeks ago, I’d be mighty pissed off that
    he’s playing for the other team. At least Belinda Stronach crossed over in
    the middle of a term of office    , as opposed to days after losing the big
    game. Here’s a
    quote     from Emerson attacking Stephen Harper during the election:
    "It’s now not just, ‘Can Stephen Harper mount a credible campaign?’ It’s
    people now having to decide, ‘Can we really live with what Stephen Harper
    will deliver?’" Apparently the new Minister of International Trade can
    live with Harper just fine. Plenty of people called Stronach a whore for crossing
    the floor. I think Emerson’s more deserving of that moniker.
  • Unusually, Michael Fornier was appointed to the cabinet despite never having
    run nor     (darned Wikipedia) having been elected as a member of parliament. This is not
    without precedent     (Trudeau appointed Pierre Juneau as Minister of Communications
    in 1975), but it seems pretty dodgy to me. One of the twenty-five most powerful
    people in our government wasn’t voted in? Harper and I agree about an elected
    Senate, but this is highly suspect. An
    professor of political science speculates     that “clearly, Mr. Harper is
    feeling there’s either a sense of political organization that isn’t there
    on the ground or that the Quebec voice is in need of further representation.”
    That’s bollocks. You gotta play with the cards the country deals you.
  • A commenter reports that there’s a protest forming tomorrow (Wednesday, February 8) at 4:00pm at Emerson’s constituency office at 2148 Kingsway.

Comments: 6 Responses so far

Joseph Planta
February 6th, 2006
9:18 pm

When people used to criticise Sir John A. Macdonald’s own cabinet-making, he’d tell them: send me better wood.

[Reply]

I Am Legend
February 6th, 2006
10:23 pm

Fact check: Michael Fortier ran for the Progressive Conservative Party in the Montreal-area riding of Laval West during the 2000 federal election. He finished in fourth place.

[Reply]

Darren
February 6th, 2006
10:31 pm

Legend: Indeed, that’s what I get for trusting Wikipedia. I’ve corrected the error.

[Reply]

Will
February 7th, 2006
9:12 am

David Emerson has disenfranchised the people of Vancouver Kingsway, misled his electorate, and should be recalled. His contituency address is
2148 Kingsway
Vancouver, BC
V5N 2T5
Go there on Wednesday February 8th at 4pm to join others in demanding his resignation, or just leave him a message: 604) 775-6263

[Reply]

JohnB
February 7th, 2006
11:08 am

The practice of appointing people to the Senate so they can perform as Ministers is not uncommon. The first name that sprang to my mind was illustrious/infamous Hazen Argue (more here: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/hazen_argue )

The delicious aspect is that Harper supports an elected Senate so the question becomes: when Harper says he must run in the next election does Harper mean an election for the Senate or the House of Commons. Traditionally, of course, the Minister runs in a by-election and doesn’t wait for the next election — and though the Minister can pick and choose which by-election, it is often for a vacancy created when a loyal party member resigns his/her seat to make way for the Minister.

Speaking of the next election … I’m sure many Liberals are now chortling that they have Harper right where they want him. The daily question period opens up Harper’s MPs to scrutiny in a way that being in Opposition never does. Then there are possibilities for votes on topics like abortion (just to force Harper’s MPs to declare themselves … hmmm, how will the women in Harper’s cabinet vote on that).

The best part is the Senate where the Liberals hold the majority. A bill has to pass both Houses before it becomes law — how often do you think bills will be sent back from the Senate to the Commons for further consideration.

Finally, of course, the Liberals will be going into the next election after coming out of a leadership convention. All the talk will be focused on “Can XXX beat Harper?” and “How will XXX beat Harper?” It’s a subtle negative but it will always be there in the unstated premis of the question: Harper losing.

[Reply]

CuriosityKilledTheCat
February 8th, 2006
10:09 am

Harper’s One-Man-Band, and Pretzel Tories.

So, a little time has passed, and Harper’s daring moves to impress the electorate with his political acumen have now sunk in a bit. Reaction across the country to his cabinet appointments – and abandonment of principles espoused during the election – have varied from sheer disbelief, to shock, to amusement. Never has a Canadian politician fallen so far so fast. Usually it takes time for power to corrupt, but Mr. Harper is a man in a hurry.

Many Tories have had to swallow their tongues and bend themselves into pretzels defending the indefensible. Some MPs have said they fear going back to their ridings because they will have to explain to their supporters how the Harper crew did a sudden U-turn on the accountability issue, which, after all, was the Tory strong point in the election. Harper ran as Mr. Clean, and painted Martin as Mr. Corruption at every opportunity he had.

Even the rightwing press is stunned and disappointed.

Examples of press reaction:

The Vancouver Sun:

“”I expected some of the superficial criticism I’ve seen,” Mr. Harper told The Vancouver Sun in an interview. “But I think once people sit back and reflect, they’ll understand that this is in the best interests of not just British Columbia but frankly of good government.” Mr. Harper referred to his statements on Monday, when he said he recruited Mr. Emerson to Cabinet to give Vancouver — which didn’t elect a Tory MP in five city ridings — a voice in Cabinet. He used the same rationale to explain why he appointed Tory national campaign co-chairman Michael Fortier, a Montreal businessman, to the Senate and as Minister of Public Works. Montreal, like Vancouver, did not elect a government MP. “I think I was clear what I did and why I did it,” Mr. Harper said yesterday.

The Calgary Sun – Roy Clancy:

“Stephen Harper must be breathing a sigh of relief today. Just minutes after being sworn in as prime minister, he relieved himself of one of the biggest burdens he had carried into the job. No longer must he live up to the impossible standard of political purity and ethical integrity saddled upon him by a naive electorate. …But as widespread moans of anger illustrate, many Canadians took Harper seriously when he promised Monday to “begin a new chapter for Canada.” No wonder they were disappointed when they learned within moments that this new chapter looks a lot like the old one. …Harper’s pragmatic moves may not have violated the letter of his promises to change the way government is run, but they shattered the spirit. …. Monday’s manoeuvres quickly lowered the bar when it comes to public expectations of this new regime.“

The Calgary Sun - Rick Bell:

“See the Tories wriggle. Wriggle, Tories, wriggle. Ah yes, one party’s turncoat is another party’s principled politician. No anger now. No demands to step down and face the voters now. No nasty name-calling now. No sympathy for the poor electors of the riding of the quisling now. … The trouble with talking about the moral high ground is you actually have to walk on it or, like the kid standing by the broken window after throwing the snowball, insist without shame you’ve done nothing wrong. … So the rationalizations flow, the lame explanations are exhaled into the hot air and only those who have drunk the Conservative Kool-Aid will follow as good old ideological ants.”

So, what lessons can be taken from Harper’s first exercise of Prime Ministerial power? Here are a few for you to ponder:

• Just as it is unfair to accuse every Republican of having the same moral vacuity that President Bush has displayed, so too is it unfair to say that all Conservatives – and all voters who voted for the Tories – lack good moral and political judgment. It is very clear that there are a lot of people who voted Tory because they sincerely believed that it was time for the Liberals to mend their house, and for another party to bring in some anti-corruption measures. These people still have high standards; they are as bewildered by the events of this week as others are.

• Harper obviously believes he is above trifling things like having to take the feelings of others into consideration. This exercise of Prime Ministerial power shows that he will think things through – apparently mostly on his own – and then decide on the best way forward. If he explains his thought process, it is obvious to him that voters will then understand why he is right, and fall into line. There is a word for this: paternalism. Harper shows clear signs of seeing himself as the Big Wise Daddy of Canadian politics. His use of the word “superficial” to describe the reaction of others to his crass abandonment of some of the major planks of his election platform illustrates this very clearly.

• Harper is focused on winning a majority in the next election, to happen within 18 months. Everything he will do or say is geared to that. If lesser mortals within his own party do not understand this, that is their problem. They must suck it up and stay in line. Big Daddy knows best.

• Harper does not believe in a democratic party for the Tory government. It is his way or the highway (witness Stronach). This is perhaps the most worrisome aspect for many Tories: did they realize they were electing a dictator rather than the leader of a parliamentary party fashioned along the lines of a Westminster democracy? How many more decisions will be made by The Leader, and rammed down the throats of the caucus? And how can Canadians expect such decisions to be the best, if they are not tested by vigorous debate within the governing party before being made?

If Harper continues in the same vein for the next 12 months, expect him to join the ranks of the Clarks, Campbells and Martins as a short-lived blip on the Canadian political firmament.

[Reply]

Add a comment