Words
GET THE NEW SFH LP!It’s so nice Stephen Harper promised to end Liberal-style politics, eh?
“Warren Kinsella can have an effect on as many Canadians as The New York Times.”
- Peter C. Newman
“Kinsella is a modern-day Machiavelli...the mastermind who ran war rooms for Jean Chretien and Dalton McGuinty...”
- Sun Media
“I really think that Warren guy is on to something.”
- Stephen Harper
“The top Canadian spin doctor.”
- National Post
“Kinsella knows how to run a winning war room.”
- The Hill Times
“Good news drives out bad, and Kinsella adheres to that golden rule.”
- Pat Gossage, Press Secretary to Pierre Trudeau
All in the family
Oh Dear…..
It’s going to be a long three and a half years and it will probably end in promoting pasta contracts.
I and a lot of other CPC members are actually in Favour of MORE partisan positions at the highest levels of government.
In the US when there is a change in the executive (iow a new president – particularly one replacing one from the opposite party) tens of thousands (maybe over a hundred thousand – I haven’t looked at the number for quite some time) of the most senior positions are vacated and filled with people from the victorious party. There is a very good reason for this – it was something well understood even back in the days of Ben Franklin – it prevents the bureaucracy from running the politicians. In Canada we have too few partisan positions – ones that run outside of the regular civil service hiring rules – thus the elected cabinet representatives can be overwhelmed by the departments that they run by years (decades) -long entrenched civil servants (this was certainly the case during the brief period that Joe Clark was PM and anyone who has had dealings with the higher levels of the Alberta government – now forty years with the same ruling party in power can attest – the civil servants run the show there – not the MLAs) Changing out the top levels on a partisan basis give the elected representatives departments more cooperative with the intents of the ruling party.
Yep… just get rid of all that expertise and replace it with partisans who make decisions with stupendous bias, a lack of understanding and re-election in mind. I don’t care if the government is Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat – this is a terrible idea that just lends itself to massive swings in policy (which makes government less efficient) and compromised decision-making processes.
I personally believe in the 3-5 options plan: a government decides what they want to achieve, they ask the civil service to devise the three best ways of accomplishing that goal, then pick the option that works best for them. Once they pick an option – and make any necessary amendments to it – they get the hell out of the way during its implementation (which is what politicians are supposed to do).
Politicians – and partisans – are not in a position to make competent decisions in areas in which they have little expertise (which is actually WHY cabinet representatives need the civil service). In the public administration field it is generally thought that the effectiveness of Canada’s government has decreased since Chretien because of a reduction in the role of the civil service in developing responsible policy.
The experts are still in place. And the added benefit is that the PMO would be much smaller and these oartronage positions would be subject to much more scrutiny/accountability than they would be in the PMO.
Agruing that partisans are not competent is flawed. The same could be argued that entrenched civil servants are incompetent at implementing a political policy change. You put far too much faith in the idea that career civil servant have your best interests at heart – their first priority is very often preserving their job and growing their kingdom.
By the same tooken it could be said that you place too much faith in the idea partisans have our best interests at heart as opposed to partisan interests ie. re-election.
But the partisan route is infinitely more accountable to the electorate – they screw up or don’t deliver and they are out.
Most partisans get booted because of their political affiliation, not because they didn’t produce, or because they’re simply corrupt or incompetent. No one knows if they produce or not, least of all the politicians who placed them there.
In the partisan system they get booted with regularity. Look at the typical length of a prime ministers tenure and that is the length of the partisan employee. Thus lots of fresh, enthusiastic blood dedicated to moving their partys agenda along every eight years or so.
“Heck of a job, Brownie…”
Looks like PMSH agrees with me in part at least:
“What does Stephen Harper want to do with his parliamentary majority? “I want to make sure that we use it,” he told CTV’s Lisa LaFlamme in a year-end interview. “You know, I’ve seen too many majority governments, the bureaucracy talks them into going to sleep for three years, and then they all of a sudden realize they’re close to an election.””
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/01/06/harpers-sleepy-majority/
Of course he agrees with you. I don’t think anyone here will be surprised by that.
just citing the evidence…
It still does not prove anything. It does not prove that having more partisan positions will be better for Canadians.
The proof is da proof – lets try it and find out.
I’d prefer to stick with proven competence, with jobs awarded as a result of a fair and unbiased competition.
Assuming a long term public employee is competent reveals a deep misunderstanding of what much of the public employee workforce is like.
Gord, you’d be surprised what I know about long term public employees. I can assure you that you are, as usual, completely wrong.
I was a public employee for eight years and dealt with thousands of them while I worked as one and thousands more since moving to the private sector. I know of what I speak.
If you have been to the moon, Mr. Tulk has been there twice. And set up a field office of Tulk Industries as well.
8 years? You were barely past probation. Talk to me when you put in 30.
At thirty I would be – if I recall the formula – already retired or very close to it.
And once again you’d be wrong.
Did you actually read the article? Did you notice that Wells shows that the other majority PMs actually accomplished quite a lot? But Harper says they didn’t, and Harper is an honourable man (apologies to Shakespeare).
Wells is wrong. Take a closer look at that list – especially Chretien. How much of that activity was force majure – the cutbacks under Chretien because the debt issue – and how much was intentional implementation of policy?
(And wells continues with his hard-on for big govt education spending. The fiscal return an that stuff has been abysmal. )
Gord you are getting boring
I will take that as a complement. When the truth becomes boring – mission accomplished.
The whole world is always wrong & Harper is always right – in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I can’t help but wonder what colour is the sky on the planet on which the Conservatives demand to live.
“(And wells continues with his hard-on for big govt education spending. The fiscal return an that stuff has been abysmal.)”
And Harper continues with his hard-on for big government. The fiscal return on that stuff has been abysmal.
Warren, I think the difference can be found in the article itself. This woman has a long history working in this field and is known as an expert. A quote from the article:
“Ms. Velshi is a professional engineer who has held director-level roles with OPG, including in the new nuclear build and nuclear generation divisions. She is also a member of the board of directors of Scientists in School and was recently a board member of Women in Nuclear Canada.”
She sounds qualified. If she were just some flack, I would see your point, however, it appears everyone in this woman’s family is rather well accomplished, and that they were achievers way before Harper was PM.
I agree with James here. If she were patently unqualified for the job, I’d be outraged at the appointment. From everything I’ve read, she’s eminently qualified for the job. I’m not bothered by appointing someone with partisan affilations as long as they’re clearly qualified for the job.
I agree that she is qualified, and just because her son is a political hack we shouldn’t assume she is a Tory. My issue above was with Gord’s ridiculous proposal, not this woman.
I wish her all the best.
P.S. – I’m not kidding here – the CAPTCHA Code for this comment is SLUT. I’ve never seen it spell a word before, and the first time I do, it spells that… should I be offended???
Keep in mind my ridiculous proposal is what is currently in use in the most vital and free and successful democracy on earth and has been for over two hundred years.
I have seen it spell a few times. Once it said “late”, once it said “damn”. Both times were kinda appropriate. Another poster once saw it spell “twat”. Can’t remember if that was appropriate or not…as in related vs. acceptable.
Funny tho.
I don’t remember that Stephen Harper ever questionned the qualifications of the husbands of Marlene Jennings or Lucienne Robillard for their nominations on boards. What he denounced was that they were the spouses of politicians, with one spouse in fact having been nominated by Brian Mulroney. If it’s acceptable for a conservative to question these incestuous nominations I see no reason why it shouldn’t be acceptable for a liberal to do same.
Gord,
We have seen this show before.
” There’s no hoe like an old hoe. ”
‘ Not till every living breathing tory has an appointment. ”
It ended with ” I took a cash advance to promote Karlheinz’s tasty, tasty pasta!
I know how it will end my friend……….
I’m talking about partisan appointments at the higher levels of government – not the local dogcatcher.
If the Refoormers head spinning 180 degree turn on “gold plated” pensions is any example, Im sure your prognostication will come true, Mr DeBerg….Retired Refoorm/CA/Con MP Chuck Strahl and others railed against the pensions, but in the end, bought into them like everybody else….
These guys talk the talk, but when in comes to govt largesse, they dont walk the walk…….
Interesting point. The reformers were on the right path inthe sense that mp pensions (and federal employee pensions) needed to be revised. That they overplayed that point by promising to not partake in any pensions at all was a mistake – I think they would all admit that in hindsight.
Look for big changes on this front – possibly in the next quarter.
One change that I think is already in the works is the abolishing of severance payments in addition to a pension at retirement. A similar cash pig is being fed upon in Alberta right now with several retiring MLAs getting huge severance packages on top of their pensions – some are getting over a million dollars (the AB system is modeled after the federal one) And many of the MLAs swore that they would never take a pension (and some didn’t back in kleins day- walkin away from ten years worth of accumulated service – the one who I know personally regrets that decision very much)
Agreement with Mr. Tulk twice in one week?…..will miracles never cease!……I have never quibbled about MP’s salaries…..many of them take a pay cut to serve Canada, and for many in Western Canada and the North, travel long distances and sacrifice much family time to be effective MP’s…..what I do resent are pensions that are way out of whack with what someone in the private sector or other govt positions would receive for the same years of service, and I am glad to hear the govt will be re-examining this…
At any rate, I agree with the good Doc’s post above about the candidates qualifications…..she appears to be eminently qualified for the position, and so therefore I dont take great umbrage in the appointment….
I’m hoping that one of the big changes flaherty and others have been alluding to is a move to defined contribution pensions and the abandonment of the financially hazardous – for both the employer and the employee defined benefit plans – such plans are on the verge if bankrupting many us states and several European countries – we need to avoid the same difficulties here in Canada.
I think it was Shakespeare who said it might be a good idea for everyone if we killed all of the lawyers. While I agree with that idea to a degree, looking back over the last fifty years the entire world would now be far better off if we had exterminated all of the actuaries. As a group they have made some catastrophic predictions that governments and employers acted upon and that now are (or in some cases have already) devastating those entities.
OnE simple example:
When lbj was bringing in Medicare in the sixties the legislation was debated based on actuarial estimates in what the cost of the plan would be in the years and decades ahead. Recently these estimates were reviewed and the projections made forty years ago were found be underestimations of 10000 (ten thousand) percent.
Similar – but perhaps not as extreme – mistakes were made on the pensions side – both public and private. these mistakes in the American social security and Medicare/Medicaid programs alone have created an unfunded liability of 70 trillion dollars.
Actuaries are educated guessers – many of whom have enormous levels of hubris when it comes to people questioning/doubting the quality of their work. Their track record has been abysmal and – as noted above – the Consequences catastrophic.
The MLA pensions were abolished by Klein when he won the PC Leadership. It was replaced by RRSP contributions.
That’s true – sort of. They get money contributed into a group rrsp which in the pension world is essentially an open ended – and thus more flexible – defined contribution plan. Plus they receive a 30 % tax-free supplement to their income and the above noted “severance” when they leave either voluntarily or not.
By almost any measure it is a very generous benefit package.
That said the base salary is far too low, as are MPs salaries. I would much prefer them paid more up front and get rid of the grey area perks.
Just stumbled across this very apropos article:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/05/john-ivison-public-pensions-a-fat-target-for-conservatives/
The changes outlined would save 600million/yr. the current unfunded liability is 227 billion (!)
Gord: “That they overplayed that point by promising to not partake in any pensions at all was a mistake – I think they would all admit that in hindsight.”
It was no mistake. They lied in order to get elected. Do you think that they could admit to that in hindsight? That they lied? They might. After all, Harper and company are relentlessly honest and forthcoming. There will not be a deficit, etc., etc..
No, I don’t think they lied. I think that once they got to Ottawa the naive scales fell off their eye and they realized their mistake.
“There’s no whore like an old whore” – another Conservative PM on patronage.
“These appointments were wrong….you had an option!” – same Conservative PM chastising the then Liberal PM for appointing 18 Liberals to patronage posts on a national debate.
“I look around this room and see a room full of senators, maybe one or two judges. A Conservative government will give jobs to people in other parties only after I’ve been prime minister for fifteen years and can’t find a single living, breathing Tory to appoint.” – same Conservative PM, talking to a room full of Conservatives, days after the debate.
True to his word, the Conservative PM gave his wife’s hairdresser a patronage appointment.
The Conservatives don’t do well with morals and ethics.
Mulroney was a PRogressive conservative – not a CPC PM
What is Harper’s excuse then?
He has done nothing like what Mulroney did.
I believe he has Mr. Tulk.
Cite the case.
You first, Mr. Tulk. You have yet to disprove my point that Harper is the same as or worse than Mulroney vis a vis patronage appointments.
For the environments sake at least, thank the Goddess for that!……
Welcome to Dogpatch!
The Harper Government™ was supposed to be more accountable, more transparent than the Chrétien/Martin era. That didn’t happen.
This is nothing new of course. The next government will do the same and the next and so on.
But don’t make it a plank in your platform and then turn around and be worse than your predecessors by leaps and bounds.
Even the New Dumb will grow weary of the hypocrisy.
Exactly. He has been promising a fresh approach and just carries on with tradition; therefore, don’t be surprised when these contradictions are pointed out. “Meet the new boss; same as the old boss … “
She is indeed well qualified for this position. What was it about the eminent scientist that made her a good pick for the EI board in 2010? Oh, never mind.
I’ll reserve my outrage for other issues. She actually seems reasonably qualified for the job. OTOH, with a background in the nuke industry, she might be inclined to a little too much leniency on the regulatory side. We’ll see.
Now, on Prime Minister Shit Head’s day-late-and-a-dollar-short condemnation of the Gatineau Mosque vandalism, that’s another story.
(Isn’t that what “PMSH” stands for?)
Nah, keep the appointments partisan and then everybody can be entitled to their entitlements and expense their chewing gum or whatever and the lady doesn’t have to worry about explaining how she got the job, because her son is a hot shot Con.
Makes life simpler for us ordinary folks, who worry about this stuff all the time.