And by extension, which ones wield front room or backroom influence?
I'm involved in a significant number of MP meetings related to a social justice focus, and there are so many names I've never heard of-- this despite being a BCer-- that I dunno how to prioritise beyond the obvious of who's in cabinet and who chairs which committee.
Babblin' aid most welcome. I'm new to posting a new thread, and I don't quite get why some leave the first post blank, so please excuse any errors.
I would say most of the socially conservative ones don't have a lot of influence. When Harper became PM he decided to silence them so they wouldn't do the types of things they did in the Canadian Alliance days when they would make controversial statements and alert the public to their views.
Cheryl Gallant is an example of a Conservative MP who has been silenced and who will never make it to cabinet.
All of them except a few in cabinet, the way this government's run.
All of them except Harper.
People leave the opening post empty because you can't ever edit it, unlike the responses.
If you're talking about who has influence *within* the Conservative government, I'm not sure we fully understand what constitutes influence within that secretive organizational culture. For all I know, belonging to the right church might make you more influential, or having the right military credentials, or raising the most money and adding the most supporters to the database.
If you're talking about influence over policy within the Conservative government, look no further than the lobbyists for the business community.
Thanks all. It's not a question about external influence over policy (since that is alas, abundantly clear). It is about who among MPs you'd have to lobby like hell if you wanted to change anything. And since I know I'm being vague about the specific issue, I know too that I'm going to get answers that are necessarily vague. I agree it's hard to know who has what sway even among the cabinet, let alone caucus. And I also agree the nutjobs like Gallant have been sat on, though I wonder what would happen if a majority were achieved. I sometimes wonder about the in-caucus influence of the social conservatives.
Anyway, further thoughts welcome; even a few names help. Kenney; Baird, Flaherty, Clement all come to mind; McKay is of course iffy for now and perhaps for good (serves the turncoat right); and as for the women, I can't bring myself to believe any have much real influence. Hell, Deborah Grey herself wouldn't get far with this crowd.
The point about women is a good one. Although there are more women in Harper's cabinet in his 2nd term than there were in his first, there are still no women in major cabinet positions.
All the major cabinet positions such as Finance, Justice, Defence, Foreign Affairs etc. are held by men. Women are only allowed to hold minor cabinet positions. The Canadian media should draw more attention to this.
Debater, I think Candace Hoeppner is in for a big promotion. Lisa Raitt was a rising star until her case of dropsy and recorded verbal diarrhea, and Natural Resources is not a nothing portfolio. I hate to say it as a feminist, but most of the rest of the women in that caucus (not that there's many of them) are not up to the job. Not that there's any great pickin's amongst the men either. What a mess.
Oh sorry, and I should have added Leona Agglukaq (sp?), who is Harvard-educated and no dumb-dumb. Not sure how influential she is in the government overall, though. I doubt she ventures outside Health and in any event has been quite busy there lately.
Well according to what Lisa Raitt said on that tape earlier this year, she doesn't seem to think Leona A. is up to the job.
Heres another rule of thumb that I think makes the task virtually impossible.
Take Kenney for example. Clearly has influence. But only on what he has been tasked with- which in turn has little necessarily to do with his portfolio. In this outfit it appears that none but maybe 2 or 3 have any influence beyond what they are tasked with [Prentice, Baird probably, Im not even sure about Flaherty's influence outside his difficult task of implementation]. Let alone caucus backbenchers, it s questionable how much influence some of the ministers have in their portfolios, let alone in making ANY impression at the Cabinet or PMO level.
I agree it's hard to know who has what sway even among the cabinet, let alone caucus. And I also agree the nutjobs like Gallant have been sat on, though I wonder what would happen if a majority were achieved. I sometimes wonder about the in-caucus influence of the social conservatives.
As far as I can see, those are moot points all around. I don't see any evidence the caucus is anything except a means of transmission from the PMO.
Here's some more food for thought on who has influence government-wide:
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/740337--boom-times-for-pmo-s-god-squad
Well according to what Lisa Raitt said on that tape earlier this year, she doesn't seem to think Leona A. is up to the job.
I view that as all part of the competitive nature of politics. Ms. Agglukaq never left any documents behind or let herself be recorded saying hurtful things about others, either, and she never used the auspices of her former employer to raise money. So who's the smarter of the two.
Well one thing I think we can say about those two: we have a pretty good idea who thinks the most highly of herself and is best at blowing her own horn.
I agree.
I just get the sense from listening to Lisa Raitt on that tape that Leona Agglukaq gets a bit pushed around by some of the other people in that cabinet.
I'd take with a grain of salt anything Raitt says. I also wouldn't assume that either of them is pushed around- nor that either has any clout in Cabinet.
Just a guess. I don't see much point in trying to figure the little mechanical details of this hyper secretive black box.
How about asking the inverse; who does have material influence, and regardless of whether they are an MP or not? The thread seems to be coalescing around the fact that the PMO is the prime centre or even source of influence.
So, I don't know, but would be intereestd in knowing, who constitutes the PMO? Not just public faces but who are the people who get to brief Harper and who he discusses issues with?
There must be a lot of people because as much as I dislike conceding it, the Harper PMO is on top of the issues, and tightly on message. That requires a lot of people with ears to the ground, grinding out priority and analysis, and others processing, discussing, communicating to PM and other PMO decision makers.
Who are these people? Where do they work? Who pays them? Are they all on public salaries? Are they paid by think tanks, other special interest groups?
I think this is a very worthy route of investigation to shed light on the OPs question. I sure want to know.
While it may be interesting for us junkies to know.... bottom line: they are beyond even the most indirect access.
For what its worth, its all public salaries. So much so that the minute you leave the PMO, no matter how good the terms you left, you are gone. Period. They are too tightly centralized to really listen to anyone not in the present circle.
Yes they are more influenced by the right think tanks than by anyone else... but I think mostly only in the sense that they think alike. They ignore the think alikes too when it suits them- which is pretty frequently. I think the tight circcle around Harper keeps its own counsel.
No, Ken, they are also influenced by some key consultants / lobbyists.
I think the most interestin thing about this question is that it is impossible to point out any points of influence on portfolios of interest. The Conservative cabinet, and the backbenchers to a certain extent, have very little influence in their own portfolio and in their own caucus. To be a fly on the wall during a conservative caucus meeting would be extroadinairy to see the actual dissent in the party that does not go public.The role of the conservative MP os to go RA-RA over every decision and policy promoted by the PMO. Whats interesting is that when their is a problem with a policy, publicly that is, its the Minister that takes the fall, even though in my estimation the ministers influence on shaping their ministries and programs are about on par with that of the PMO.
As for discinct names, I know that Maurice Vellacott, who is a backbencer, is SUPER pro-life, and sends letters to every MP every month/2 weeks with right wing articles on the perils of abortion. Yet publicly, no one really knows this due to the fact that the messaging in wholy in control by the PMO.
I feel like you'll have a hard time getting to anyone who has power on the issues you hope to put forward. Especially social justice ones.
As for discinct names, I know that Maurice Vellacott, who is a backbencer, is SUPER pro-life, and sends letters to every MP every month/2 weeks with right wing articles on the perils of abortion. Yet publicly, no one really knows this due to the fact that the messaging in wholy in control by the PMO.
Though to question whether that's exclusive to the Tory caucus, how does that compare to Tom Wappel?
True, I was just using Vellacott as an example that I knew reasonably well. I'm not trying to say that central messaging is exclusive to the Conservatives, because it trully is party of every party. But my main point is just the independence that ministers have on their portfolio is lacking.
While it may be interesting for us junkies to know.... bottom line: they are beyond even the most indirect access.
For what its worth, its all public salaries. So much so that the minute you leave the PMO, no matter how good the terms you left, you are gone. Period. They are too tightly centralized to really listen to anyone not in the present circle.
Yes they are more influenced by the right think tanks than by anyone else... but I think mostly only in the sense that they think alike. They ignore the think alikes too when it suits them- which is pretty frequently. I think the tight circcle around Harper keeps its own counsel.
No, Ken, they are also influenced by some key consultants / lobbyists.
Having influence, definitely. Lots. My comment was directed at them making their own strategic choices, that even top staff recently left on good terms probably are not listened to. But that probably isn't saying anything really: any government is going to trump its compelling strategic needs over what its favoured lobbyists tell it [and it wants to hear].
The first line was in relation to the topic of the opening post: looking for some path that advice from 'popular forces' can get in.
