Dave Emerson and the new cabinet
I was annoyed that the Conservatives welcomed Dave Emerson into the party and gave him a cabinet post. As you can tell by my first blog about Belinda Stronach; I don't agree with someone crossing the floor. Then I gave it some more thought. Politics is business. Business is about getting the best possible people for the job.
People should see that this type of behavior will always occur throughout our political history.
The fact is, "our" vision of democractic reform is alittle different than that of the Conservative party's. We are disappointed because "we" wanted people to sit as an independent or run in a by-election. This was not Stephen Harper's vision as he stated during his interview with the CBC during the election. He isn't being a hyprocrite and he managed to grab an excellent MP from another party.
It is part of business, as we all know companies steal employees from other companies all the time. Time to grow up people.
I was bought, took a much better offer from a competitor. It happens all the time. Everyone knows someone who moved to another job for a better offer.
The Conservatives got a PHD in economics in Dave Emerson. He is a darn good steal of an MP and well suited for the cabinet position he got.
Belinda Stronach had nothing going for her except a vote, a vote that only got her a few months as a cabinet minister in a dying party.
As far as business deals go, the Conservatives got the best deal by far.
People should see that this type of behavior will always occur throughout our political history.
The fact is, "our" vision of democractic reform is alittle different than that of the Conservative party's. We are disappointed because "we" wanted people to sit as an independent or run in a by-election. This was not Stephen Harper's vision as he stated during his interview with the CBC during the election. He isn't being a hyprocrite and he managed to grab an excellent MP from another party.
It is part of business, as we all know companies steal employees from other companies all the time. Time to grow up people.
I was bought, took a much better offer from a competitor. It happens all the time. Everyone knows someone who moved to another job for a better offer.
The Conservatives got a PHD in economics in Dave Emerson. He is a darn good steal of an MP and well suited for the cabinet position he got.
Belinda Stronach had nothing going for her except a vote, a vote that only got her a few months as a cabinet minister in a dying party.
As far as business deals go, the Conservatives got the best deal by far.
posted by Fighting for Democracy at 9:52 PM
7 Comments:
Politics is more than business. At least it's supposed to be. Do you mean to tell me you weren't upset when the Liberals inked Belinda in order to win the "business contract" over the Conservatives?
If politicians are merely employees, why not simply appoint to your cabinet the very best from across the country, regardless of whether they were elected or not. The country would certainly benefit from having an entire cabinet with PhDs in their respective ministries. So why not do that? Imagine if your MP defected to the Liberals tomorrow. Would you be posting your congratulations to the Liberal party on stealing an "employee" from the CPC? Of course not.
You've posted this exact same piece of crap post in the comments of almost every blog I read on this issue. You've certainly got remarkable quantity, but if you keep spewing this ridiculous nonsense you'll never have anything close to quality.
joel howe said:
"If politicians are merely employees, why not simply appoint to your cabinet the very best from across the country, regardless of whether they were elected or not. The country would certainly benefit from having an entire cabinet with PhDs in their respective ministries."
I certainly agree with your post. How do we decide how the appointments are done? What party makes the appointments. We all know when we have candidates like Rob Anders and Belinda Stronach as MP's for cabinet choices, the country is in trouble.
You're just annoyed with politics as usual, so am I. I mentioned in my blog post that I don't like floor crossings because the optics are never good.
BUT, running Canada is a business. Business is best run by business leaders like Dave Emerson who has the experience.
If a Conservative MP switched sides, it would because the offer was too good to pass up. Belinda got a cabinet post and she couldn't refuse. It wasn't politics, it was business.
I see that Harper is treating his position as a business leader and is making decisions on best fit for the job.
Come on, every company is pissed when they lose a star employee. We have actually seen companies sue the competitor that stole their employee. Everyone expects loyalty but we all chase higher expectations for ourselves.
So don't bullshit me; if you get an amazing offer from a competitor, most people would switch sides.
Harper hubris, or Does Harper have a tin ear?
The conventional wisdom now seems to be that Stephen Harper is a political genius, of the same ilk as Napoleon, or Churchill, or – pick your favourite. But what if Harper’s cabinet-making is not a politically astute move by at all, but simply a sign that he has a political tin ear?
After all, sometimes the past is predicator of the future: in 2004 he misread the electorate with some of his comments about the Liberals – especially Martin – and his premature triumph speeches about the West taking over. And in Parliament he has sounded a bit screechy and overly self-righteous. Then there are those stories about him being a one-man-band, who does not need a mentor because, one observer says he said, he never met anyone as smart as he is ....
So, perhaps this was just Harper being Harper, and marching to his own discordant band?
If so, wait until the second Act: gonna be a lot of fun for Libs and NDP, and a lot of buyer’s remorse by many voters in Ontario ....
And meanwhile, the Bloc will crouch in the wings, nursing its wounds, and waiting for the right time to take Harper down – when he is under a cloud of intolerance or stupidity, but before he cements himself into Quebec as Mulroney Junior. Best get rid of him soon, before he becomes a real threat to the Bloc ...
So wait for the right moment, and the ganging up by the three parties who each have good reasons for taking him out of his new digs at Sussex, and who – between them – hold the balance of power.
After all, Harper arranged a mob-lynching of Martin with all three parties deciding to put in the knife on that particular Ides of May. Having shown the way, I wonder if Harper fears that this time the other three parties will cooperate to bring him down?
Better than even chance, I think; and probably before summer ends, too.....
Maybe Harper should let those renovations take place at Sussex Drive before he moves in: might save him having to move twice, eh?
" Quote: So don't bullshit me; if you get an amazing offer from a competitor, most people would switch sides."
So, if I have contracts I gained while in the employ of one company, using their literature, resources and reputation, do I have a right to take those contracts with me when I swithc sides? Who decided that government is bussiness anyway? That's not how I see it. I don't think business as it is currently practiced, particularly by large corporations is anything to emulate. The biggest problems in government recently have occurred exactly becasue it is treated as bussiness (e.g. sponsorship scandal). Perhaps we need to look elsewhere for models of governance.
Business contracts are property of the business. The contacts you make while conducting business is fair game. It's the relationships that are built with clients that make a employee valuable. Usually the competitor wants the experience that the employee brings to a new company and they also want him to bring his previous business contacts with him.
To circumvent this scenario from happening; businesses usually have their employees sign some kind of employment contract. Usually this contract prevents the signee from working with a competitor for a couple of years, unless of course they pay some kind of compensation.
The problem with floor crossings are the MP's don't have an employment contract with their party. They are free to move between parties.
The reason is usually a conflict of ethics, morals, business practices and of course a great job offer.
For example, a MP is catholic and the party they belong to wants to bring in anti-religion laws. It would be in conflict with their beliefs and this MP would cross to another party that supports their beliefs.
To restrict floor crossings would lead to dissention within parties. Most parties would love to get rid of a member that is not on the team.
You still haven't explained why this "government as business" model is appropriate. The whole idea of governemnt as business really falls apart when you consider what the role of individuals is in each. Am I, as citizen the customer, the boss or the employee? Is my MP my employee, my boss or my coworker (shop forman)? There are certainly similarlities between what we expect from government and business, but the two entities are not identical and you can't apply the rules from one to the other, except in very specific circumstances, such as financial audit. The rules of business only apply to financial aspects of governence, not to policy etc. I think you would have a hard time convincing Canadians that financial considerations alone would be a good basis for government any more than financial considerations alone would be a good basis for running a family. There are other values involved in running a family and in good governance than just finances, so you can't reduce government to "business". In any case, say we are to buy into the government as bussiness model and let's say I voted for Mr. Emerson (Liberal). I as the voter ("customer"), signed a "contract" with the Mr. Emerson (Liberal), at least partly because I wanted the "service" (philosophy, policy or whatever) offered by the Liberals. This is the basis of representative democracy, I vote for the individual and the party s(he) runs for. Mr. Emerson falsely presented himself as the Liberal "representative". If I want the "product" the Liberals offered, and not the one Mr. Emerson, PC, can deliver, he has no right to take the "contract" to another "company" if I and the former company don't want him to. As things stand, he has no way of knowing why people voted for him and seems afraid to find out. If he truly believes I wanted him and not the Liberal party, why not call a byelection (call me and ask if I want the product offered by his new company)? He had better not be expecting me to pay for a product I did not order, simply because he is the guy who took my order. He should also not expect that his former company would pay his expenses for getting the contract with me, if he is going to take it to another company before tghe ink is dry. So why not pay back the Liberal party for campaign expenses? In Ms. Stronach's case I can see a case where she felt that the party behind her (PC) had moved away from her value system (the one she got elected on) and was therefore making a move at least patly in the interest of her constituents. In Mr. Emerson's case, am I to beleive that he woke up the morning after the election and realized that he wasn't a Liberal after all, and that those who voted for him knew all along he was a Conservative in Liberal clothing and therefore he wasn't betraying them? Again, I did not vote Liberal, so I am not partisan in this debate. I dont' like Ms. Stronach, so I have personal interest in defending her, I simply see her move as more defensible on philosophical (moral) grounds, than is Mr. Emerson's is not.
Belinda Stronach left the Conservatives because she didn't win the leadership. When she loses the leadership for the Liberal Party, she will leave politics. It's not philosophical differences that can be defended, it's business to Belinda too. Her principles are purely political power. It is exactly the same as Paul Martin, who quit his party the same day he lost the election. Would people have voted for him or let him lead the party if they knew he was going to quit the same day as the election if he didn't win the election.
Perhaps if the people in Emerson's riding were "aware" of why Paul Martin put him there, they might have voted for someone else. Blame Paul Martin for parachuting in a buddy that wanted to be useful to his constituents and make a difference within cabinet. When Paul Martin lost, Emerson could see the writing on the wall; shocked that Paul Martin quit the same day of the election; he couldn't represent his voters in the same way he did before with the Liberals. He switched. Plain and Simple.
There has got to be some kind of model for government to follow when it takes in billions of tax dollars. A good business model is needed. Simply, government is a business. I explained before, it's about achieving a best fit of people required for the jobs of running Canada. I would like more transparency and I hope with the accountability act it will occur. I even suggested that the Conservatives should have the NDP's Judy Wasylycia-Leis be the Ethics commssioner. No partisanship.
It's a plain fact, yes fact! that recall's don't exist, or calling by-elections on floor crossings. It's not law, it's not in any kind of "MP" contract. We'll see when parliament resumes, if an MP brings in a motion and a bill that supports by-elections on floor crossing and becomes law. Then we can argue about something that ACTUALLY EXISTS! :)
Post a Comment
<< Home