Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Liberals' Missed Opportunities

I'm not Lloyd Axworthy, but sometimes he just makes sense.

10 comments:

janfromthebruce said...

Right on! I never had so many people ask me, engage me, and positively be supportive of the coalition in my rural area. It was amazing and now I am really concerned that the libs will play politics "the same old, the same old."

Spudster said...

Unless there is some organization of grassroots created together that pressures the party independently of the traditional structure, this sort of thing will continue.

If there aren't attempts to mend this problem constitutionally in May. I'm leaving this party. I will be clearly wasting my time.

Anonymous said...

Good clip

-scott

Susan said...

Well if Ignatieff fails to fulfill his promise to reach out to the grassroots, there is still time between January and February for new candidates to come forward, or previous ones to return to the race. Our primary concern now is to get rid of Harper, in my opinion, but Ignatieff is still an unknown quantity and he should speak to Canadians ASAP.

RuralSandi said...

O/T, but there's a terrific picture of Ignatieff, Rae and his wife - they, together, look like such a power "team".

I have to admit - Rae can sure deal with the press and remind them of their articles, etc.

I think reform of leadership races should be number one - I think Rae could make history if he were in charge of this. Imagine, changing this path would be historical for the Liberal party.

Sometimes things happen for a reason.

No matter how angry, hurt, etc. people are - these two guys together could make huge changes to the party.

It's almost as if Ignatieff and Rae have become the new party together.

People are upset about this turn of events and people were very upset about how the last convention was done.

My vote - Rae for the job of democratic change in the Party. If he can do it - he'd be a hero.

janfromthebruce said...

I now wonder how much the liberal party is willing to sellout for by backing up Harper, so here's the list (which I hope does not get filled)
Women's equity - check
Worker's rights - check
economic stim package for mainstreet folks - check
rejigging EI so laid of workers can collect - check
no P3's - check
selling govt assets - check

I truly hope libs are not willing to sell Canadians out here, so the party doesn't have to face voters for 4 years.

The question that needs to be asked, do the libs think that Harper is better at managing the economy better than a Liberal-NDP govt? It is a simple yes or no answer.

roblaw said...

..workers rights? ..women's equity? ..yes, in times of massive economic stress, nothing like a new round of government intrusion in the market with new rule changes to help business cope with an already damaged economy.

Watch the news.. Yahoo, EA Games, massive layoffs are on the way.. see how workers rights and women's equity legislation helps toss more jobs down the drain..

If you really want 4 years of Harper majority, pressure Ignatieff to continue to appease the loud special interests at the expense of average Canadians.. and, yes, I'm sure many believe that "average Canadians" are all over supporting such things.. maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it..

sharonapple88 said...

the loud special interests at the expense of average Canadians..

I had no idea women weren't "average Canadians."

Is asking for equal pay really that outrageous a demand?

roblaw said...

..there is a massive difference between legislation that says "you can't pay a man and woman differently for the SAME job.. "pay equity" proponents want legislation (a la federal government standards) that requires that DIFFERENT jobs be compared to determine, for example, if a waitress should be paid the same as, say, a grocery store clerk.. so, you have a whole new level of Federal Employment Police (say, "increased civil service") to make these comparisons, and then, because income can ONLY go up, you don't just balance the income, you raise the woman's income to match the different-but-the-same man's income..

Net result:

Government mandated pay raises;
Higher taxes;
Higher compliance costs;

No.. I don't think equal pay is an outrageous demand, and if you are willing to simply leave it that there will be legisltation prohibitng the same employer from paying men and women differently for the SAME job.. I'm onside 100%.. I have a wife who is a very independant, brutally intelligent lawyer, and a daughter who is 19 and just entering her career path.. and I would stand with anyone to assure they have full access to the employment market like anyone else.. what I will not support, is another progressive government intrusive make work project that hurts our economy and in the bargain, probably costs Canadian women jobs.

sharonapple88 said...

I'm happy that we agree on the idea of equal pay for equal wages.

One thing to note....

that requires that DIFFERENT jobs be compared to determine, for example, if a waitress should be paid the same as, say, a grocery store clerk

The rule is that if they both create an equal amount of profit/income for the manager, there shouldn't be a difference in pay. For example, in a world without gender and based solely on logic, unit A and unit B generate the same amount of business, they should be rewarded equally. We live in an illogical work with massive inequity. (Tangent warning.) For example, factory workers over seas can be paid pennies to the dollar for what they would be paid if they lived in the US or Canada. Is this necessarily fair? Is this right? Yes, if you're all about maximizing profits. No, if you're interested in social justice or concerned about society in general. The push for lower wages isn't always beneficial for society since it puts deflationary pressure on an economy.