— Musings —01.06.2012 07:41 AM
— Musings —01.06.2012 07:41 AM
Oh Dear…..
It’s going to be a long three and a half years and it will probably end in promoting pasta contracts.
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???
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.
Of course he agrees with you. I don’t think anyone here will be surprised by that.
It still does not prove anything. It does not prove that having more partisan positions will be better for Canadians.
I’d prefer to stick with proven competence, with jobs awarded as a result of a fair and unbiased competition.
Gord, you’d be surprised what I know about long term public employees. I can assure you that you are, as usual, completely wrong.
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.
And once again you’d be wrong.
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……….
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…….
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….
The MLA pensions were abolished by Klein when he won the PC Leadership. It was replaced by RRSP contributions.
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..
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.
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.
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.
“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.
What is Harper’s excuse then?
I believe he has Mr. Tulk.
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!……
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).
Gord you are getting boring
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.
“Heck of a job, Brownie…”
Welcome to Dogpatch!
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.