Requisite cabinet shuffle speculation - Macleans.ca
 

Requisite cabinet shuffle speculation

Aaron Wherry gets the potential scoop on this summer’s shuffle (maybe)


 

Here is everything you need to know ahead of this summer’s possible cabinet shuffle.

Peter MacKay might leave politics though he probably won’t, in which case he will be moved out of defence, unless he isn’t. Jim Flaherty will stay at finance, unless he doesn’t. Vic Toews is going to retire, unless he doesn’t, though, when you think about it, we all retire at some point.

Possibly a number of prominent ministers are in line for a promotion, unless they aren’t. Obviously some ministers are in line for demotions or new portfolios, unless they end up staying where they are. A number of backbenchers and parliamentary secretaries are rising stars because they have not yet embarrassed themselves in public too obviously and could be moved into cabinet, unless the Prime Minister feels otherwise. It is generally believed that the Prime Minister must make one particular move, but maybe he doesn’t believe that. The ability of an individual to stand in Question Period and recite his or her lines and fend off opposition attacks is of paramount importance, except insofar as it maybe doesn’t really demonstrate much of anything that might indicate how ministers are chosen. Unless it does.

The Prime Minister will announce the shuffle in early, mid or late July, or early, mid or late August or maybe September or sometime thereafter. The new cabinet will be meant to convey stability or change or strength or some combination thereof. It will be important for both some obvious reasons and some implicit messages conveyed, but it will also not be that important because it doesn’t really matter because the Prime Minister makes all the decisions anyway, unless that is an overly simplistic understanding of how this government operates.

Also, of course, there will be implications for a future Conservative leadership race that might not happen for at least another two years, unless the Prime Minister retires this summer (or next year?), though he probably won’t, even though he certainly could, because, ultimately, almost nothing is entirely inconceivable.


 

Requisite cabinet shuffle speculation

  1. Perfect! What all the speculation really amounts to. Nada.

    I’m glad you said ‘possible’ shuffle as well….we don’t even know if one is planned. Can’t see the point in it myself. When you shuffle bozos, you still get bozos.

    For example….switch Mackay and Flaherty around Does that make it any better???

    Harp should be doing something useful instead…..like signing the EU trade deal.

  2. Thank you for the lucidity, perspicacity, and specificity. Spares me from engaging in haruspicy (the divination of chicken entrails) again. That’s always so messy.

  3. I think you might be taking the piss there AW.

    Everyone keeps on saying, you wait till Harper gets his game face on again; regains his mojo; reinvents himself as being warm and fuzzy; readjusts, reorients himself and rediscovers his principles. Gets busy playing chess master again.

    I’ve come to believe Coyne’s dictum: these ARE his principles; this IS his policy, his style the way he does stuff, the values he has That’s it folks!

    What do we keep hoping will ever change? What you see is what we got so far and most likely what we’re getting from here on in. This guy doesn’t do plausible reinventions; just doubles down. After Van loan as house leader for instance, i wouldn’t be the least surprised to see him follow up with that well known conciliator Pierre Poilievre.

    • Change the faces on the puppets ; wow ,—– but;…. the master puppeteer pulls all the strings ! Harper’s play will not change !!!! ……….
      Oh ….you may expect him to up his add budget to tell us what a spectacular show he giving us…..( all on our dime ) More same old , same old ……….

  4. Has this been shared with Kinsella?

  5. The world still has too many columnists.

    • Most of the useless ones are here Kate, and this is where the cull should start!

      • What would you have to moan about then?

      • Rogers is willing to prop up this rag for a while longer, not so for the Postmedia rags which are all facing further cuts, the Slop and Pale is going, the Red Star is close to done.

        Going the way of the dinosaurs.

  6. .. does anyone even care ?

    Tic Toc Tic Toc .. that’s the crocodile coming for Stevie H/Ray N .. scrawny Joe Oliver will get et up.. yum yum, then Peter Kent.. mmmn .. then Keith Ashfield.. burp !*! .. Poilievre squawking to the very end *&^%$ .. gulp .. the crocodile takes em all .. Peter Pan saves Canada Eh … lotsa help from Tink er belle .. n the hungry croc

    When your governent lives in fantasy land… we can swim there too .. !!

    Tic Toc .. Tic Toc ..

  7. ANYONE could have written this column. Maclean’s is sure losing it’s relevancy…

  8. I notice Macleans had many, many reasons why Canada is the best country in which to live. However, it escapes many Macleans columnists and readers that this just may be the result of good government. We are really very lucky to be here, and we should quit complaining and putting down the Harper government. They are, at least, better than all the rest.

  9. stupid waste of words and space

  10. Maybe this useless, brainless journalist will get run over by a car next time he crosses the street, or maybe he won’t. Maybe Macleans will realise he is a complete moron and get rid of him, or maybe they won’t. But maybe some other news corporation will buy this magazine in a week, a month, or a year and get rid of idiotic staff, or maybe they won’t. Perhaps they’ll fire them straight up, or maybe they’ll wait for a week, a month, a year. Or maybe, just maybe, this idiotic journalist will get the point and RETIRE and leave room for competent journalist who are relevant.

    • Thank God, I’m not paying for a subscription. Don’t understand why they keep that inane columnist on their payroll.

  11. I love the accuracy of your predictions. And how you wrote 300 words that are logically reducible to ‘true’.