google has a history of failed rollouts.
this is really easy: don’t pay into it. tell your friends not to pay into it. share torrents of “original content”. etc.
it will be dead in six months.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL9RetC0ook
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Tamitik
One per province for sure and one for the territories and the rest
3 more from BC , 2 more from Alberta , 2 more for Saskatchewan and Manitoba ,
3 more from Ontario , 2 more from Quebec and 2 more from Atlantic region.
That is fair and acceptable to the west, if we get shafted again we will separate
jessica murray
saskatchewan only has one representative, and that would suggest that three of the 4 alberta mps should be ministers. that would be 75% of the elected members from alberta.
4/184 = 2%. 2% of 30 is 0.65. one minister from alberta is being generous.
if it wasn't for the quota in regional representation, they shouldn't get anybody.
and, if they don't want to be in opposition, they should stop voting for it.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/trudeau-cabinet-ministers-toronto-gta-1.3302319
One per province for sure and one for the territories and the rest
3 more from BC , 2 more from Alberta , 2 more for Saskatchewan and Manitoba ,
3 more from Ontario , 2 more from Quebec and 2 more from Atlantic region.
That is fair and acceptable to the west, if we get shafted again we will separate
jessica murray
saskatchewan only has one representative, and that would suggest that three of the 4 alberta mps should be ministers. that would be 75% of the elected members from alberta.
4/184 = 2%. 2% of 30 is 0.65. one minister from alberta is being generous.
if it wasn't for the quota in regional representation, they shouldn't get anybody.
and, if they don't want to be in opposition, they should stop voting for it.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/trudeau-cabinet-ministers-toronto-gta-1.3302319
at
22:53
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
SimonYLW
I'd suggest start with the most critical cabinet positions and pick the absolute best person for the post, regardless of where they are from. Then when you get down to things like Public Safety, Transport, Employment, Heritage, State, you can pick the best of each region / province.
TruthUponYou
OMG, why not pick the best person for the job, rather then the loser.
jessica murray
it's very hard to define who the "best person for the job" is, or what that even means.
so long as we're talking about ought rather than is, the way this should be done is to look at each individual mp and determine what they best have to offer.
so, consider ralph goodale. you could plug him in anywhere. but, the thing he best has to offer as an individual is being house leader, and possibly deputy leader. somebody else can fill the other roles he's qualified for.
this is also the best way to promote new mps. for example, consider ginette petitpas taylor. she's totally off the radar. but, she's best positioned to offer a voice on the status of women, and has far more to offer on that file than anybody else.
or, consider hedy fry. she's held several portfolios. but, what she's best positioned to offer is a voice for seniors - because she is the oldest mp by a good margin.
the reason this is a better approach is that selecting cabinet positions is not an open market. you're not able to look outside of the 184 mps that are available. if we're going to do the best qualified thing, we want to call up people like john manley and anne mclellan. i'd suggest we should bring chretien back for the pm, even, and put martin back in charge of finance. but, they're not elected mps.
when faced with a restricted pool of candidates, what we ought to do is look at what we have, figure out what they're best positioned to contribute to and connect them with the appropriate ministries.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/trudeau-cabinet-ministers-toronto-gta-1.3302319
I'd suggest start with the most critical cabinet positions and pick the absolute best person for the post, regardless of where they are from. Then when you get down to things like Public Safety, Transport, Employment, Heritage, State, you can pick the best of each region / province.
TruthUponYou
OMG, why not pick the best person for the job, rather then the loser.
jessica murray
it's very hard to define who the "best person for the job" is, or what that even means.
so long as we're talking about ought rather than is, the way this should be done is to look at each individual mp and determine what they best have to offer.
so, consider ralph goodale. you could plug him in anywhere. but, the thing he best has to offer as an individual is being house leader, and possibly deputy leader. somebody else can fill the other roles he's qualified for.
this is also the best way to promote new mps. for example, consider ginette petitpas taylor. she's totally off the radar. but, she's best positioned to offer a voice on the status of women, and has far more to offer on that file than anybody else.
or, consider hedy fry. she's held several portfolios. but, what she's best positioned to offer is a voice for seniors - because she is the oldest mp by a good margin.
the reason this is a better approach is that selecting cabinet positions is not an open market. you're not able to look outside of the 184 mps that are available. if we're going to do the best qualified thing, we want to call up people like john manley and anne mclellan. i'd suggest we should bring chretien back for the pm, even, and put martin back in charge of finance. but, they're not elected mps.
when faced with a restricted pool of candidates, what we ought to do is look at what we have, figure out what they're best positioned to contribute to and connect them with the appropriate ministries.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/trudeau-cabinet-ministers-toronto-gta-1.3302319
at
22:41
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i've penciled in 9:
Minister of National Multiculturalism - navdeep bains
Minister of Health - carolyn bennett
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness - bill blair
Minister of International Development - kristy duncan
Minister of International Trade - chrystia freeland
President of the Treasury Board - john mccallum
Minister of National Revenue - bill morneau
Minister of Industry - judy sgro
Minister of Public Works and Government Services - adam vaughn
i'll acknowledge that judy sgro may very well be left out, and that putting kristy duncan in that file is a question of continuity - she's been the critic on that file for quite a while. but, i think she makes the cabinet, somewhere. i think the rest of them are the best fits for those ministries.
that leaves plenty of space for the rest of the country - but means manitoba & alberta only get one each, and they're really both there simply out of convention of regional representation. i really wouldn't give either any, otherwise.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/trudeau-cabinet-ministers-toronto-gta-1.3302319
Tamitik
Ontario is entitled to 3-4 ministers that's all
jessica murray
you know, it's this kind of thing that continues to place westerners in low regard in the eyes of easterners. i know - it's just some random troll on the internet, it doesn't represent westerners in any meaningful way. but, the complete lack of any kind of logic underlying this is just remarkable.
we could talk about how ontario is the most populous province, or how it has the most mps, or how it's almost half of the liberal caucus.
but, there's no use. it's just ridiculous.
Mahou Shoujo
Ontario is entitled to pay its own bills.
jessica murray
it would actually help a lot if we could keep the dollar low. what albertans don't realize is that the feeling is broadly mutual. i mean, it's cheaper for ontario to import oil from the middle east than it is to import it from alberta. think that through, and ask yourself how excited ontarians ought to be about being nice to albertans. all we're going to get is being told to freeze in the dark.
Bobo Macoute
Guess you don't like to eat fruit or wear clothes. A low dollar just makes us poorer.
jessica murray
not exactly - i prefer to eat fruit grown in canada, and buy clothes that aren't made by slaves.
a low dollar is going to be especially important with the tpp opening up more opportunities for corporations to use slave labour. what it does is act as a tariff on imports, while increasing our competitiveness in the export market.
but, hey - if you want a jobless economy where we tax professionals through the roof to put everybody else on welfare, we can do that with a petrodollar, too. i'm an artist. i'm happy to live on subsidies.
your call.
to be clear: i'm not opposed to free trade, if it's really free trade. but these agreements are not actually free trade agreements. and, a comparative advantage in slave labour is a pretty dramatic distortion of ricardian theory.
free trade with the united states was always a good idea. i don't know why it's been so hard to get mexico's labour standards up to par - when they are, that will also be a good idea. free trade with most of europe, certainly western europe, is a good idea. free trade with japan is a good idea. even china is getting better, although it's still awful.
it's the countries where unions are outlawed and workers live in jails that we should not be signing agreements with.
but, we're stuck with this - and, as we are, we need to do whatever we can to mitigate the damages. devaluation is our best tactic.
---
Tamitik
All Liberal Governments have been Quebecois ,
I say his will be no different ,most positions will be covered by Quebec and Ontario .
The west will not take that kindly like in the past ...................
jessica murray
well, maybe they should stop electing conservatives, then.
if calgary & edmonton want serious representation in a liberal government, they'll need to elect serious mps.
i think kent hehr would be a good fit in some kind of queer activist role, as i believe that's what his background is. but, i see no reason that he should get a big cabinet post. he's a good candidate for a junior role to start with, and then he can work his way up.
amarjeet sohi has a lot of background in ant-racism initiatives and would be a good junior minister for multiculturalism until, again, he works his way up.
the other two seem like backbenchers, to me.
this is a far cry from anne mclellan, who, amongst other things, sat on the board of the ccla.
TruthUponYou
let's see what happens in 4 years. if we don't see competence, and and we see more and more nasty jabs, we'll bring back the conservatives.
jessica murray
keep dreaming. electoral reform is going to be designed to prevent that. the conservatives will come out of the next election as the third party.
Minister of National Multiculturalism - navdeep bains
Minister of Health - carolyn bennett
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness - bill blair
Minister of International Development - kristy duncan
Minister of International Trade - chrystia freeland
President of the Treasury Board - john mccallum
Minister of National Revenue - bill morneau
Minister of Industry - judy sgro
Minister of Public Works and Government Services - adam vaughn
i'll acknowledge that judy sgro may very well be left out, and that putting kristy duncan in that file is a question of continuity - she's been the critic on that file for quite a while. but, i think she makes the cabinet, somewhere. i think the rest of them are the best fits for those ministries.
that leaves plenty of space for the rest of the country - but means manitoba & alberta only get one each, and they're really both there simply out of convention of regional representation. i really wouldn't give either any, otherwise.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/trudeau-cabinet-ministers-toronto-gta-1.3302319
Tamitik
Ontario is entitled to 3-4 ministers that's all
jessica murray
you know, it's this kind of thing that continues to place westerners in low regard in the eyes of easterners. i know - it's just some random troll on the internet, it doesn't represent westerners in any meaningful way. but, the complete lack of any kind of logic underlying this is just remarkable.
we could talk about how ontario is the most populous province, or how it has the most mps, or how it's almost half of the liberal caucus.
but, there's no use. it's just ridiculous.
Mahou Shoujo
Ontario is entitled to pay its own bills.
jessica murray
it would actually help a lot if we could keep the dollar low. what albertans don't realize is that the feeling is broadly mutual. i mean, it's cheaper for ontario to import oil from the middle east than it is to import it from alberta. think that through, and ask yourself how excited ontarians ought to be about being nice to albertans. all we're going to get is being told to freeze in the dark.
Bobo Macoute
Guess you don't like to eat fruit or wear clothes. A low dollar just makes us poorer.
jessica murray
not exactly - i prefer to eat fruit grown in canada, and buy clothes that aren't made by slaves.
a low dollar is going to be especially important with the tpp opening up more opportunities for corporations to use slave labour. what it does is act as a tariff on imports, while increasing our competitiveness in the export market.
but, hey - if you want a jobless economy where we tax professionals through the roof to put everybody else on welfare, we can do that with a petrodollar, too. i'm an artist. i'm happy to live on subsidies.
your call.
to be clear: i'm not opposed to free trade, if it's really free trade. but these agreements are not actually free trade agreements. and, a comparative advantage in slave labour is a pretty dramatic distortion of ricardian theory.
free trade with the united states was always a good idea. i don't know why it's been so hard to get mexico's labour standards up to par - when they are, that will also be a good idea. free trade with most of europe, certainly western europe, is a good idea. free trade with japan is a good idea. even china is getting better, although it's still awful.
it's the countries where unions are outlawed and workers live in jails that we should not be signing agreements with.
but, we're stuck with this - and, as we are, we need to do whatever we can to mitigate the damages. devaluation is our best tactic.
---
Tamitik
All Liberal Governments have been Quebecois ,
I say his will be no different ,most positions will be covered by Quebec and Ontario .
The west will not take that kindly like in the past ...................
jessica murray
well, maybe they should stop electing conservatives, then.
if calgary & edmonton want serious representation in a liberal government, they'll need to elect serious mps.
i think kent hehr would be a good fit in some kind of queer activist role, as i believe that's what his background is. but, i see no reason that he should get a big cabinet post. he's a good candidate for a junior role to start with, and then he can work his way up.
amarjeet sohi has a lot of background in ant-racism initiatives and would be a good junior minister for multiculturalism until, again, he works his way up.
the other two seem like backbenchers, to me.
this is a far cry from anne mclellan, who, amongst other things, sat on the board of the ccla.
TruthUponYou
let's see what happens in 4 years. if we don't see competence, and and we see more and more nasty jabs, we'll bring back the conservatives.
jessica murray
keep dreaming. electoral reform is going to be designed to prevent that. the conservatives will come out of the next election as the third party.
at
22:20
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
you know, i actually think he laid this out pretty clearly.
the senate thing is obvious: you appoint those 22 senators within a week, then you set up the process and let it work for future appointments. that's just a question of simple pragmatism, and i'll concede the point of foolishness if it doesn't happen - but you act like he's taking advice from his dead dog, or something. even if he happens to be firmly entrenched in not appointing a single senator before the process is set in place, even if he's holding to it as some unmodifiable ideal....the party will talk that out of him. well, they'd better, anyways. if they can't, we're indeed in for a long four years. but, let's be realistic, here. they're not going to spend all this time writing legislation, then let it get voted down when the senate is a fifth empty. it's preposterous.
they've got at least 15 chretien era ministers they can call up, and a lot of them are in their 60s. you could even cut a deal with somebody like brian tobin to sit for three years and then resign.
for the rest of this, hey: if a tactic fails then just keep doing it, right? it worked with trickle down economics, i'm sure it will work just fine with his hair, too. you should always keep doing the same thing and continue to expect different results. that's what strong leadership is all about!
the most fundamental change that happened on the 19th is that we no longer have an elected king. i know the media would like to think otherwise. but, we're back to a parliamentary democracy - one where the prime minister is merely first amongst equals. decisions are going to be made collaboratively, with input by many people.
there's no way those senators don't get appointed almost immediately.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-honeymoon-period-how-long-1.3300777
the senate thing is obvious: you appoint those 22 senators within a week, then you set up the process and let it work for future appointments. that's just a question of simple pragmatism, and i'll concede the point of foolishness if it doesn't happen - but you act like he's taking advice from his dead dog, or something. even if he happens to be firmly entrenched in not appointing a single senator before the process is set in place, even if he's holding to it as some unmodifiable ideal....the party will talk that out of him. well, they'd better, anyways. if they can't, we're indeed in for a long four years. but, let's be realistic, here. they're not going to spend all this time writing legislation, then let it get voted down when the senate is a fifth empty. it's preposterous.
they've got at least 15 chretien era ministers they can call up, and a lot of them are in their 60s. you could even cut a deal with somebody like brian tobin to sit for three years and then resign.
for the rest of this, hey: if a tactic fails then just keep doing it, right? it worked with trickle down economics, i'm sure it will work just fine with his hair, too. you should always keep doing the same thing and continue to expect different results. that's what strong leadership is all about!
the most fundamental change that happened on the 19th is that we no longer have an elected king. i know the media would like to think otherwise. but, we're back to a parliamentary democracy - one where the prime minister is merely first amongst equals. decisions are going to be made collaboratively, with input by many people.
there's no way those senators don't get appointed almost immediately.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-honeymoon-period-how-long-1.3300777
at
21:53
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm going to take a guess on this.
Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency - hunter tootoo
Minister of Foreign Affairs - david mcguinty
Minister of Public Works and Government Services - adam vaughn
President of the Treasury Board - john mccallum
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons - ralph goodale
Minister of National Defence - andrew leslie
Minister of National Multiculturalism - navdeep bains
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food - wayne easter
Minister for La Francophonie - denis paradis
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness - bill blair
Minister of Finance - scott brison
Minister of National Revenue - bill morneau
Minister of Natural Resources - stephane dion
Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs - dominic leblanc
Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec - pablo rodriguez
Minister of State for Science & Technology - marc garneau
minister of state for multiculturalism - amarjeet sohi
Minister of aboriginal affairs - jody wilson-raybould
Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada - catherine mckenna
Minister of Health - carolyn bennett
Minister of International Development - kristy duncan
Minister of Industry - judy sgro
Minister of the Environment - joyce murray
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - yvonne jones
Minister of International Trade - chrystia freeland
Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages - melanie joly
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - alexandra mendes
Minister of Transport - maryann mihychuk
Minister for the Status of Women - ginette petitpas taylor
Minister of Employment and Social Development - judy foote
Minister of Sport - carla qualtrough
Minister of Veterans Affairs - karen mccrimmon
Minister of state for seniors - hedy fry
Minister of Labour - ??
there's just no obvious candidate - of either gender - for the labour position. which is sort of curious.
it's a very bourgeois caucus.
there's not even really anybody left on the ndp benches to try and coerce, either.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-liberal-government-trudeau-cabinet-1.3299968
Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency - hunter tootoo
Minister of Foreign Affairs - david mcguinty
Minister of Public Works and Government Services - adam vaughn
President of the Treasury Board - john mccallum
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons - ralph goodale
Minister of National Defence - andrew leslie
Minister of National Multiculturalism - navdeep bains
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food - wayne easter
Minister for La Francophonie - denis paradis
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness - bill blair
Minister of Finance - scott brison
Minister of National Revenue - bill morneau
Minister of Natural Resources - stephane dion
Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs - dominic leblanc
Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec - pablo rodriguez
Minister of State for Science & Technology - marc garneau
minister of state for multiculturalism - amarjeet sohi
Minister of aboriginal affairs - jody wilson-raybould
Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada - catherine mckenna
Minister of Health - carolyn bennett
Minister of International Development - kristy duncan
Minister of Industry - judy sgro
Minister of the Environment - joyce murray
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - yvonne jones
Minister of International Trade - chrystia freeland
Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages - melanie joly
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - alexandra mendes
Minister of Transport - maryann mihychuk
Minister for the Status of Women - ginette petitpas taylor
Minister of Employment and Social Development - judy foote
Minister of Sport - carla qualtrough
Minister of Veterans Affairs - karen mccrimmon
Minister of state for seniors - hedy fry
Minister of Labour - ??
there's just no obvious candidate - of either gender - for the labour position. which is sort of curious.
it's a very bourgeois caucus.
there's not even really anybody left on the ndp benches to try and coerce, either.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-liberal-government-trudeau-cabinet-1.3299968
at
21:31
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the biggest thing with hedy is her age. she's 75. she's still going strong, don't get me wrong. and experience is important, to a point. but, you have to balance it out with long term planning, and it's hard to plan a ministry around somebody that should have retired an election or two ago. here's to hoping that hedy has a few more elections left in her, but to realizing that you can't plan around it.
that said, she is uniquely positioned to be a minister of state for seniors, and i think that's a good idea. there's a lot of focus in the media on presenting a younger cabinet. i understand the reasons for this. but, the liberals don't have problems with younger voters. they have problems with older voters. older voters have always skewed right, but not the way they have over the last ten years. i might suggest that this has something to do with the reality that the liberals lost an entire generation of good mps - people like allan rock and brian tobin - in the power shift from chretien to martin. my experience - this is unscientific - is that older people follow politicians the same way that younger people follow media personalities. they latch on to the ones they like, and follow them for extended periods. the fact that older boomers are drastically under-represented in the liberal caucus is no doubt a big reason why the liberals have such a hard time attracting older voters. and, putting out a cabinet full of young people is going to alienate what is almost certainly going to be the most important voting base for years to come. you can't call up hazel forever. and, putting hedy in the senior portfolio may be a mild gesture, but it's the kind of thing they have to do to win elections in the upcoming years, until we get through the demographic glut.
i know most people are pencilling dion in as environment minister, but i think there's a big misunderstanding about the role. the environment minister focuses mostly on things like wetlands and parks. this is important and everything, but it's not the most important post in terms of tackling climate change. it is the minister of natural resources that is going to be faced with these tough decisions, and that is where i would place dion.
that makes joyce murray the best remaining choice for actual environment minister.
that said.....i'm a little confused by the media rhetoric, and am starting to expect a cabinet that may not make a lot of sense. you expect a few goofy articles from the usual suspects. but, the totality of it seems to suggest that there's some co-ordination in setting expectations. it remains to be seen how much of this is just that - setting expectations. but, it seems as though he's set to make a major tactical and logical error, here.
part of the reason i felt ok about voting for a guy that has no business running for this office is that it seemed clear to me that he'd be relying on the experienced people around him. that is, that i didn't vote for trudeau as much as i voted for the liberal party machine. a choice to reject that machine in favour of a cabinet full of rookies is going to resonate very badly. but, there's a caveat to that, too.
scholars of the elder trudeau will point out that one of his major contributions to the way canada works was the dissolution of actual decision making power out of cabinet and to the civil service. the idea was that decisions should be made by life-long bureaucrats, who are appointed on merit and seniority, rather than elected people that more often than not have little real understanding of their files. when trudeau was doing interviews with mansbridge and others, he pointed out repeatedly that he rejected the centralizing approach of his father (picked up strongly by harper) to put power in the pmo and was in favour of devolving power back to the ministries. but, this is kind of a canard - what trudeau did was centralize political power, while shielding the way that ministries actually operate from the political process altogether. there's a kind of marxism in this; it's one of the more explicitly "left" parts of the whole third way approach. yet, it was assumed by everybody that what the younger trudeau meant was a return to parliamentary government, where capable ministers are in charge of their portfolios. if what he meant was that he wished to carry on with his father's movement towards separating the civil service from parliament, he was not at all clear. but, it's the only possible conclusion if he really does come out with a photo op cabinet like this, full of ministers that may accurately reflect a kind of "retail politics" but could not be described as independent or capable.
the message is that these people aren't actually doing anything. and, if that's the case, i'd rather support the abolition of cabinet altogether. i'm not opposed to taxes paying for capable ministers. but, i'd rather see that money spent on something worthwhile than to fund a glossy parliament that is just a public relations front to the civil service.
if the media is right, this is an error in multiple ways. i'm hoping the media is wrong. but, i don't have any evidence to back up the idea that he's going to be more rational about this - it's just faith. and, while i'd like to think that faith is well-placed in the party, there's no empirical reason for me to conclude that it's well-placed in the individual.
think about this...
excluding harper (who falls more into the "generation jones" category - he wasn't a true boomer), canada has managed to avoid a baby boomer prime minister. at this point, it seems safe to conclude it won't happen.
that's remarkable. they remain the largest voting group.
www.straight.com/news/568856/leak-suggests-jody-wilson-raybould-will-be-justin-trudeaus-cabinet
that said, she is uniquely positioned to be a minister of state for seniors, and i think that's a good idea. there's a lot of focus in the media on presenting a younger cabinet. i understand the reasons for this. but, the liberals don't have problems with younger voters. they have problems with older voters. older voters have always skewed right, but not the way they have over the last ten years. i might suggest that this has something to do with the reality that the liberals lost an entire generation of good mps - people like allan rock and brian tobin - in the power shift from chretien to martin. my experience - this is unscientific - is that older people follow politicians the same way that younger people follow media personalities. they latch on to the ones they like, and follow them for extended periods. the fact that older boomers are drastically under-represented in the liberal caucus is no doubt a big reason why the liberals have such a hard time attracting older voters. and, putting out a cabinet full of young people is going to alienate what is almost certainly going to be the most important voting base for years to come. you can't call up hazel forever. and, putting hedy in the senior portfolio may be a mild gesture, but it's the kind of thing they have to do to win elections in the upcoming years, until we get through the demographic glut.
i know most people are pencilling dion in as environment minister, but i think there's a big misunderstanding about the role. the environment minister focuses mostly on things like wetlands and parks. this is important and everything, but it's not the most important post in terms of tackling climate change. it is the minister of natural resources that is going to be faced with these tough decisions, and that is where i would place dion.
that makes joyce murray the best remaining choice for actual environment minister.
that said.....i'm a little confused by the media rhetoric, and am starting to expect a cabinet that may not make a lot of sense. you expect a few goofy articles from the usual suspects. but, the totality of it seems to suggest that there's some co-ordination in setting expectations. it remains to be seen how much of this is just that - setting expectations. but, it seems as though he's set to make a major tactical and logical error, here.
part of the reason i felt ok about voting for a guy that has no business running for this office is that it seemed clear to me that he'd be relying on the experienced people around him. that is, that i didn't vote for trudeau as much as i voted for the liberal party machine. a choice to reject that machine in favour of a cabinet full of rookies is going to resonate very badly. but, there's a caveat to that, too.
scholars of the elder trudeau will point out that one of his major contributions to the way canada works was the dissolution of actual decision making power out of cabinet and to the civil service. the idea was that decisions should be made by life-long bureaucrats, who are appointed on merit and seniority, rather than elected people that more often than not have little real understanding of their files. when trudeau was doing interviews with mansbridge and others, he pointed out repeatedly that he rejected the centralizing approach of his father (picked up strongly by harper) to put power in the pmo and was in favour of devolving power back to the ministries. but, this is kind of a canard - what trudeau did was centralize political power, while shielding the way that ministries actually operate from the political process altogether. there's a kind of marxism in this; it's one of the more explicitly "left" parts of the whole third way approach. yet, it was assumed by everybody that what the younger trudeau meant was a return to parliamentary government, where capable ministers are in charge of their portfolios. if what he meant was that he wished to carry on with his father's movement towards separating the civil service from parliament, he was not at all clear. but, it's the only possible conclusion if he really does come out with a photo op cabinet like this, full of ministers that may accurately reflect a kind of "retail politics" but could not be described as independent or capable.
the message is that these people aren't actually doing anything. and, if that's the case, i'd rather support the abolition of cabinet altogether. i'm not opposed to taxes paying for capable ministers. but, i'd rather see that money spent on something worthwhile than to fund a glossy parliament that is just a public relations front to the civil service.
if the media is right, this is an error in multiple ways. i'm hoping the media is wrong. but, i don't have any evidence to back up the idea that he's going to be more rational about this - it's just faith. and, while i'd like to think that faith is well-placed in the party, there's no empirical reason for me to conclude that it's well-placed in the individual.
think about this...
excluding harper (who falls more into the "generation jones" category - he wasn't a true boomer), canada has managed to avoid a baby boomer prime minister. at this point, it seems safe to conclude it won't happen.
that's remarkable. they remain the largest voting group.
www.straight.com/news/568856/leak-suggests-jody-wilson-raybould-will-be-justin-trudeaus-cabinet
at
21:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this argument is rooted in the idea that ensuring gender parity necessarily implies that unqualified people will be put into cabinet. i’m using that language for the reason that the idea of “most qualified” is impossible to define. for each portfolio, you’re going to have a handful of qualified people and it’s never going to be clear which is one is best qualified, or even to convincingly define why one is better qualified than the next.
that said, you have to understand the history of this. it goes back to the chretien years, where carolyn bennett was on the brink of organizing a caucus revolt over the lack of female representation in cabinet – and this is one of the reasons (there are a couple of others) why it’s clear that she’s really a lock on a cabinet position, despite some media suggesting otherwise. she won this argument. but, here’s the twist: did chretien have the advantage of having sufficiently many qualified women to allow for gender parity? it’s questionable. not clearly false, but questionable. it is, however, clear that he didn’t have a sufficient number of women with cabinet experience, but this is of course self-perpetuating.
that was twenty years ago, and it’s less that social attitudes have changed dramatically since then and more that a generation of women raised with different opportunities has presented a different caucus.
of the 50 women that have been elected, it’s not going to be hard to find plenty that have no business being discussed as potential cabinet material. but, it’s likewise not hard to find 14 that are no less qualified than any male alternative.
one could tenuously argue that this is somewhat unfair to qualified male mps and take the perspective that, rather than strict parity, it should be proportional to the number of elected female mps. but, the idea is for the cabinet to be representative of the general public, rather than representative of the caucus. further, it’s ignoring the fact that women remain underrepresented in parliament. part of the reasoning underlying this is to act as an incentive for greater female involvement.
but, the idea that gender parity is going to put unqualified people in cabinet? it may have been true in 1995, but it’s simply disingenuous in 2015.
www.therebel.media/_trudeau_getting_ready_to_unveil_his_cabinet_based
that said, you have to understand the history of this. it goes back to the chretien years, where carolyn bennett was on the brink of organizing a caucus revolt over the lack of female representation in cabinet – and this is one of the reasons (there are a couple of others) why it’s clear that she’s really a lock on a cabinet position, despite some media suggesting otherwise. she won this argument. but, here’s the twist: did chretien have the advantage of having sufficiently many qualified women to allow for gender parity? it’s questionable. not clearly false, but questionable. it is, however, clear that he didn’t have a sufficient number of women with cabinet experience, but this is of course self-perpetuating.
that was twenty years ago, and it’s less that social attitudes have changed dramatically since then and more that a generation of women raised with different opportunities has presented a different caucus.
of the 50 women that have been elected, it’s not going to be hard to find plenty that have no business being discussed as potential cabinet material. but, it’s likewise not hard to find 14 that are no less qualified than any male alternative.
one could tenuously argue that this is somewhat unfair to qualified male mps and take the perspective that, rather than strict parity, it should be proportional to the number of elected female mps. but, the idea is for the cabinet to be representative of the general public, rather than representative of the caucus. further, it’s ignoring the fact that women remain underrepresented in parliament. part of the reasoning underlying this is to act as an incentive for greater female involvement.
but, the idea that gender parity is going to put unqualified people in cabinet? it may have been true in 1995, but it’s simply disingenuous in 2015.
www.therebel.media/_trudeau_getting_ready_to_unveil_his_cabinet_based
at
20:09
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm not unsympathetic to the pushback, but these people *are* qualified and it's an incomplete shortlist, to boot. but, you have to keep in mind two extra factors:
1) women mps are facing the same problem all new job applicants face. you can't get the job without experience, but you can't get experience without the job. the discrimination clause in the constitution explicitly points out that programs designed to aid a disadvantaged group should be excluded from consideration. but, it doesn't append the caveat that a program of the sort should be temporary. affirmative action in the short run is necessary to reverse systemic inequality; affirmative action in the long run actually cements it in place.
2) the single, biggest reason that gender parity in caucus is a good idea is that it sends the message that if you run for office then you can make a difference. gender crusaders are important and everything, but it's easy to understand why so many women would rather live in such a way that allows them to explore opportunity than spend their time fighting against entrenched prejudices. hopefully - and i think this is the actual reason this is being done - a gender-balanced cabinet over the course of a term or two will encourage more women to run. but, the key is this - not just any women. i'd argue gender parity in cabinet is a far better idea than appointing female candidates; every single one of these women won a nomination battle and then won an election. parachuting women in is the worst possible approach. when strong women candidates run, they win. the struggle is getting more strong women candidates to actually run.
so, when you put that in context, is this something you can expect to be permanent? no. don't expect any affirmative action laws to be passed. and, don't be surprised if trudeau himself wavers on this after an election or two, if it works in increasing the number of quality female candidates.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/we-have-a-record-number-of-female-mps-but-hold-the-applause/article26887164/
1) women mps are facing the same problem all new job applicants face. you can't get the job without experience, but you can't get experience without the job. the discrimination clause in the constitution explicitly points out that programs designed to aid a disadvantaged group should be excluded from consideration. but, it doesn't append the caveat that a program of the sort should be temporary. affirmative action in the short run is necessary to reverse systemic inequality; affirmative action in the long run actually cements it in place.
2) the single, biggest reason that gender parity in caucus is a good idea is that it sends the message that if you run for office then you can make a difference. gender crusaders are important and everything, but it's easy to understand why so many women would rather live in such a way that allows them to explore opportunity than spend their time fighting against entrenched prejudices. hopefully - and i think this is the actual reason this is being done - a gender-balanced cabinet over the course of a term or two will encourage more women to run. but, the key is this - not just any women. i'd argue gender parity in cabinet is a far better idea than appointing female candidates; every single one of these women won a nomination battle and then won an election. parachuting women in is the worst possible approach. when strong women candidates run, they win. the struggle is getting more strong women candidates to actually run.
so, when you put that in context, is this something you can expect to be permanent? no. don't expect any affirmative action laws to be passed. and, don't be surprised if trudeau himself wavers on this after an election or two, if it works in increasing the number of quality female candidates.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/we-have-a-record-number-of-female-mps-but-hold-the-applause/article26887164/
at
19:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)