The federal election, started May 20, 2015

Does anyone have a link to the story I just saw on TV that Harper has made a slew of patronage appointments of former Conservative candidates/supporters to various Boards, Judgeships, etc.?

Hopefully after this election whomever wins will start a process towards revising election and, expenses and party finance rules.

Those who think the elimination of the per vote subsidy was the end of it are seeing how wrong that is. The Conservatives are intent on continuing to try to break the opposition in any way they can in order to be the only party left standing.

All the opposition parties are aware that losing the next election means that each election thereafter will be on an increasingly tilted playing field. In fact if the Harper Conservatives cannot be defeated this October, it may be that they can never be as the opposition gets crippled more each year. While this election is not likely to be fair -- a strong enough anti-government sentiment could still win but by the election after that more doors may be closed and the Conservatives may engineer victory from a smaller and smaller base.

All parties in this election are fighting for their lives. (In the case of the Conservatives the inquiries that a new govenrment will make following their defeat could devastate that party.)

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

David Young wrote:

Does anyone have a link to the story I just saw on TV that Harper has made a slew of patronage appointments of former Conservative candidates/supporters to various Boards, Judgeships, etc.?

 

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/the-gargoyle-harper-tories-unleas...

 

Thanks, Sean.

Now, will the public compare this to the Trudeau patronage orgy of 1984?  Or will they just shrug their shoulders, and think 'Nothing changes!'

On absolutism

Shorter John Ibbitson:

The Very Serious People hereby demand that Thomas Mulcair give a definitive yes-or-no answer on all possible trade agreements before we even know what's in them.

http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.ca/2015/07/on-absolutism.html

bekayne wrote:

Pondering wrote:

David Young wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

David Young wrote:

Does anyone have a link to the story I just saw on TV that Harper has made a slew of patronage appointments of former Conservative candidates/supporters to various Boards, Judgeships, etc.?

 

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/the-gargoyle-harper-tories-unleas...

Thanks, Sean.

Now, will the public compare this to the Trudeau patronage orgy of 1984?  Or will they just shrug their shoulders, and think 'Nothing changes!'

Do you think people should hold current day leaders responsible for something that happened 30 years ago?

No, but it's still famous to this day. "You had an option, sir" etc.

Absolutely the comparison should be made.

Turner lost the election on this (a couple other things hurt him as well -- bum patting etc. but this was the biggie. A TV moment for a generation in politics.)

But Turner was delivering on a promise made. Turner's "had no option" was meant to be a question of honour - a promise kept. He lost the election for going through on a promise.

Harper is making his own appointments here. He and MacKay proved that when you make a promise you do have an option -- you can lie and do what you like. These appointments are also comparable in purpose: Trudeau was rewarding loyal Liberals in a way that had been done for generations. Ugly, but personal not in conflict with the electoral process.

Harper is using these appointments to guarantee that the public, should they decide to throw out his party, will be frustrated by partisan Conservatives placed as a parting gift not to reward friends but to frustrate the will of the people who may want to take the country in a different direction.

Trudeau's patronage was ugly becuase it was a final payback to friends. Harper's becuase it was meant to fill up posts to prevent a new democratically elected government from using those to shape the insitutions according to the democratic mandate.

Trudeau's appointments did not, and were not meant to, change the character of these institutions into the future. Harper's are meant to do that.

So yes, comparison should be made -- and if Turner lost his chance to govern further over those appointments -- Harper should fare far worse.

Also in the last 30 years, we have come to expect higher standards than this when it comes to appointments. But in the last few years we are seeing that in fact we can do worse.

I am not endorsing what the Liberals did back then but the population decided for their government it was a capital offence. Surely Canadians have a right to compare and conclude that for Harper it should be nothing less.

This is big news.

B.C. walk-in clinics held to stronger standards after CBC Go Public investigation

Dr. Heidi Oetter says stronger language was needed after a case of prescription fraud

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-walk-in-clinics-held-...

Deficit projection leads NDP to call for emergency meeting

Nathan Cullen suggests calling Finance Minister Joe Oliver to appear before House finance committee

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/deficit-projection-leads-ndp-to-call-for...