Sometimes, though, it takes a person who has worked inside “the system”, as Scott has, to understand what elected officials go through, and just how difficult it is to suffer a defeat. Although my political leanings are right, I feel badly on a personal level for the incumbent Liberal MPs who lost their seats last week. I worked for an MP who lost an election, and I can tell you that it plainly sucks. These defeated MPs are good people who sacrificed a great deal to serve the people in Canada’s Parliament. While a seat in Parliament is certainly not anyone’s God given right, the adjustment period for people coming out of public life is difficult.

Ok so who is engaging in character assisnation and choice by ideology now?

All reports I have read about Lynch are that he is an excelllent Chief Bureaucrat. I hav enever heard it uttered one way or another what his political leanings are, other than they arent obviously Liberal. All shoudl cheer this.

All other reports I have read indicate he is hardly a sycophant to Harper and that Lynch is one of the people whose dissent Harper strongly respects. In other words the guy probably is able to muster an facts to make an argument.

Once agian, the tradition of the Civil Service was that it was nuetral and independent. This is ultimately the source of its power, since it stays while masters change. Compromising its neutrality weakens it and its power in the medium and long term, since people stop believing it and set up alternatives, like Earnscliffe.

I have been disappointed that Lynch hasnt come down harder on some of the clearer affronts on nuetrality, but like any bureacrat I suspect that the price is paid over time by the offenders, lack of promotion, assignments to Inuvik, loss of junkets, demotion to an office without a window…yada yada.

So once again….the fact that Lynch is might be conservative/Conservative disqualifies him from being Chief of the PCO? Thats just as partisan, maybe more so than what we have been discussing in Kady’s original post.

This isn’t joke. This is really how they think.

Unlike others, I don’t resort to personal attacks.

“Hearing what? You haven’t said a single thing.”

Basically I’m saying that the Libs have stacked things for a very long time, and anyone who says different has blinders on.

***

Which, without any verifiable documentation of the practices you describe, isn’t a single thing.

Basically you’re saying that you don’t have a shred of non-anecdotal evidence and presuming that anybody who says different doesn’t have a shred of evidence either.

May I just say, Thank God you are no longer working for the Public Service.

Basically I’m saying that the Libs have stacked things for a very long time, and anyone who says different has blinders on.

Nice try Mike.

Some of you don’t like hearing it, but too bad.

***

Hearing what? You haven’t said a single thing.

I worked for the federal govt at one time and know how the Liberals operated.

The people I know that continued to work in the federal govt told me frequently that it was the same old BS.

Some of you don’t like hearing it, but too bad.

You had your run, maybe you’ll have another.

The Liberals have had a lot of time to stack the deck.

Some Liberals are really worried they can’t shuffle the cards awhile.

Too bad.

You have no evidence.

Don’t tell me that I have no evidence. I’m an eye witness.

Thats a fair point. The outsider mentality exists within the Conservative party.

Now apparently Harper and Kevin Lynch, the head of the PCO, have a strong relationship. Appparently Lynch shares some of the distaste for leaks etc, since he wants to get rid of the perceptions, and to some degree reality, of the civil service acting in a partisan manner.

Elections Canada issue, I have no special insight, its one of those issue boiling beneath the surface that I jsut dont really have time to look at. I think it is overblown on both sides.

these things should be lessened since the Cons continue to govern and until there is a legitimate callenge then the civil service knows “who their Daddy is” for the moment.

Mulroney took a broader view, but then again he had a smashing majority to play with and could afford to be magnaminous, the civil service was running scared quite frankly at that time.

Didnt do the Cons a lot of good in their first term , treating the civil service decently, paid off more going into the second term. The fact that the civil service was working on some pretty serious policy stuff I think shut them up…1) intersting work and 2) Idle makes the devils work so to speak, so keep em busy.

So when you start with a basic premise of “these guys have been controlled by the others for so long they have to be turned against us” you will find the “evidence” to fulfil your own prophesy. And you won’t look for another explanation.

Fun fact: Pearson and Trudeau were once civil servants. Can anyone name a Conservative PM who was?

Political staff are allowed to join the civil service – previously quite easily and at fairly senior levels. The Liberals formed the federal government for about thirty of the last forty years…Tentative conclusions: more Liberals have joined the bureaucracy than Conservatives and civil servants are more likely to become Liberal PMs than Conservative PMs.

And I think its safe to say that the metaphorical responses to my own metaphor are very telling and go a long way towards proving my point.

I should have advanced conspiracies like these during Adscam. Oh well, live and learn. We still have the Income Trust leak and whatever else the RCMP is up to lately.

What you are describing are tactics. The question of whether the larger goal that the tactics support is worthwhile. There is also a legitimate question to be asked about whether the assumptions behind the tactics are correct.

So from the Conservative (as oppossed to conservative) POV the working assumption agencies and institutions discussed had a high degree of liklihood of having been “captured”. That they had served the Natural Governing Party for so long is it unreasonable to assume that there would be issues.

So when you get serious leaks such as the tapes of Gerry Ritz (not defending the comments BTW) what are you to think, neutral civil service?, I am sure there are other examples from much earlier. When there are apparent contradictions in how Elections Canada is enforcing its rules between Cons and Libs, what are you to think? as the Conservatives. When you get such bloody minded push back from the Nuclear saftey group, is it partisanship or incompetence? Especially when the Conservative government is now having to deal with a “crisis” that suddenly appeared after brewing for close to a decade?!?

Point being independent and NEUTRAL are definitely how the institutions should work and supporting those institutions to meet those goals would be well within conservative values, neutral, due process, deference to authoritative expertise where warranted.

Rather than viewing it as simple partisanship, which to give Ti Guy some credit, might be behind some of the elections Canada stuff (both sides though), it could be that there is a legitimate view that these institutions are NOT fuflfilling thir stated mandate and are acting as partisan proxies. In that light the tactics are justified on numerous levels. good governance and partisan survival.

So the question remains whether the assumptions are true and will the Conservatives stop when they have acheived the conservative goal or if they will go beyond and turn these things into partisan arms or dumpring grounds. The appearance (real or imagined) of going to far is what did the Mulroney Conservatives in.

Summary: What are the goals the tactics are being used to support? Are they legitimate, there being some evidence to support and will the partisan blood overboil and end up turning the Conservatives against their own principles, as often happens to political parties Conservative Liberal and Social Democrat.

Settle down, Norman.

I think it is called “logical fallacy.” As in “conservative governments are sound fiscal managers,” e.g., the one south of our border that could see a trillion dollar deficit this year.

But don’t worry, the jwls’ of this world will find a way to blame those who do not share their unique vision (or is it hallucination?).

If we are doing analogies, the government is the captain of the ship, the people are the ship, and bureaucracy/qaungos are barnacles.

..or something.

Kady

I think military is one of the few legitimate roles the State has, so I don’t mind generals with weapons but it does bother me the rest of us have been disarmed. If the generals did decide to do something, we couldn’t stop them.

“And if C/conservatives believe that government is inherently bad, why on earth would they want to run one?”

This is the classic dilemma for Cons. As far as I am concerned, proper conservatives wouldn’t touch a government job with a ten foot pole because they don’t have the temperament for it and so we end up with Conservatives who are ‘b’ team, at best, making up the caucus.

I think Harper ranks somewhere between fair/good but he’s seen as the best of the best within caucus, which is pathetic. I wish our political system allowed people from outside government to run for the top jobs (Premier/PM) without spending a decade in Parliament before you are allowed a chance to lead, like they do in US (Romney is the most recent example but there are lots of them).

Then why didn’t you say that in the first place, Ti-Guy? Why the sneer, and then the cowardly retreat? It’s almost embarrasing watching you pee your pants and hide in the corner begging mommy to come help you cause your mouth wrote another cheque you can’t cash.

No…I just don’t believe Stephen Harper has come all that far from this NCC days. The imperatives of those types of agencies and that type of conservatism are to get government to work in the interests of business exclusively or get government out of the way entirely.

Did I say that? Make up your mind as to which cartoon should be drawn.

What I was painting was why those of a conservative philosophy and mindset would want to be involved in government. If you want to say watch the watchers then fine.

You imply I, or other conservatives, think all are eeevil (pinkie in corner of mouth while I ask for 100 billion dollars). I imply they are nothing other than human, with foibles, flaws in addition to their the potential for fantastic insight and effort.

Once agian the point I was attempting to answer was why a conservative would choose to be in government if they dont like it. To restate, government does matter because it hiolds real power, so it is appropriate for those who may be suspicious of who that enormous power may be used to be involved to ensure it follows their lines of view. You’ll notice that the statement says nothing about who is correct, or even about policy goals, since thats not what this is about.

If I follow your logic then conservatives should never be involved and government should only be left to those who are enamoured with its majesty and power.

And of course, everyone else, being morally bankrupt/eeevil, don’t want these things or any other of the beautiful, pure, wonderful conservative aspirations.

Hoo boy.

As for why conservatives want to run government…because it matters and they know it matters, but mostly because they cant ignore it. It takes money from people, often conservative people…so they have an interest.

Conservatives tend to, or should have an interest, in how government operates, because you think government should be deliberative and careful about how it exercises power (by definition coercive power) is all the more reason to ensure you are in the room when the decisions get made.

1) Ensure the right process is followed, due process and all that stuff

2) Ensure that the objectives are in line with conservative objectives (this is the real debate)

3) Ensure that there are no unintended consequences being ignored from others having a greater focus on objective versus method.

But you guys nailed the issue facing the Liberal party….Saying it doesnt stand for anything is not inconsistent with not doing a navel gazing exercise. You need a leader first and you can put the party mechanics at work on fundraising and fact finding before that happens.

Mr Reid’s colleagues would be well advised to lsiten to him on this issue. You can debate policy and ways forward, but you need fundraising and you need agreed upon facts about the environment you are in no matter what scenario you follow.

Forgive me for taking the dig, but it doesnt shock me that a significant chunk of the Liberal Party would rather worry about how they feel rather than do fact finding and make data based decisions. tis in the water doncha know.

First off, “Collective Fist” would be a kicking band name.

Second, I used to think that too (why would conservatives bother to waste their time if they honestly thought the entire complex of government and civil service were corrupt and/or useless?).

Then along came Mike Harris and the Common Sense folks in Ontario. Good times.