Doer stepping down

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

FYI, here is an enumeration of what was lost with the (Conservative) privatization of MTS. (.pdf file) Incidently, Tom Stefanson, the brother of the Conservative Finance Minister Eric Stefanson, became the CEO of the new MTS.

Quote:
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I am glad the member for Turtle Mountain introduced members' statements by talking about credibility, because this government has absolutely none, as we have seen evidence in Question Period today. We have a Premier (Mr. Filmon) who in Question Period would not even answer a direct question about the fact that he, his government appointed one Tom Stefanson a chair of the board of MTS, would not address one question about the fact that the government still continues to have representatives on that board and that they are directly responsible for the million-dollar potential benefit to one Tom Stefanson at the expense of the people of Manitoba.

This is of scandalous proportions in this province. This is corrupt and unethical behaviour. Talk about conflict of interest. Tom Stefanson was one of the four key players in the sell-off of MTS. By the way, to the Premier, that did not include anybody in terms of the people of Manitoba. Tom Stefanson now is in the position of getting a million-dollar benefit out of that. Anyone in the province of Manitoba understands how unethical that is.

It amazes me that this Premier had the gall earlier in Question Period to stand in his place and try and deny the connection with Tom Stefanson and even put the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) in the position of having to answer questions. I believe that, Madam Speaker, should be considered a conflict of interest, obviously. I do not make that as a personal attack. I say to the Minister of Finance, get the Premier to do your dirty work next time. Get him to answer for the kinds of decisions that have led to that kind of rip-off.

For this Premier to talk about the sale of MTS having been passed by this Legislature, let us not forget that this is a Premier who used every single undemocratic, every tactic in the book to ram through the sale. We are now saying: who is benefiting? The people of Manitoba have seen 400 layoffs, higher rates, and Tom Stefanson pocketing $1 million. That is corrupt. That is unethical.

Hansard

Tom Stefanson is still the CEO of MTS Allstream. His brother, the former provincial finance Minister, was appointed to the board of VIA Rail Canada by Federal Minister Lawrence Cannon. Services rendered, etc.

.............................................................

I guess that begs the question: will the Manitoba Premier (eventually) get such an appointment? In any case, MTS is still a privatized body and its benefits are lost to the people of Manitoba.

 

 

sandpiper

Just a question: would buying back MTS have bankrupted the province? Or was it sold for a song and would need to be bought back at significantly higher prices? I ask because here in Nova Scotia, I here people calling for our NDP gov to buy back the power company - a great idea, but completely out of the realm of financial possibility. A shame it was sold, but now it's gone. Is this seen as one of the failures of Doer? To not buy back the phone company?

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

George Victor wrote:

 

Cheer up fellas. Manitoba could go Conservative. That would fix things there. 

It was Conservative. They privatized the Manitoba Telephone System. But Gary Doer fixed that, I think.

Sure, no problem. You can sell me your house for peanuts, and I'll give you a cut off the top after I sell it in the market for some over-inflated price. Try and buy it back without going cap in hand to the banksters and avoiding a NAFTA sue job thanks to a previous federal Liberal government who sold us all down the Mississippi River with the dumbest trade deal in the history of the solar system. At what point does anyone finger our galactically stupid(and corrupt) federal Liberal governments for throwing a fuck into made in provincial Canada socialism? We need federal power.

remind remind's picture

George Victor wrote:
Cheer up fellas. Manitoba could go Conservative. That would fix things there.

Yep. good one george!

And yep, fidel, it is ALL the NDP's fault, the Liberals and Conformatories are the shining beacons of hope for us all.

Unionist

sandpiper wrote:

 A shame it was sold, but now it's gone.

Sorry - where has it gone? Are you actually suggesting the people of Manitoba don't have the ability to buy it back, at a price set by the people of Manitoba? If being in power still leaves you feeling impotent, perhaps winning elections ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Quote:
Is this seen as one of the failures of Doer? To not buy back the phone company?

Naw, it was more his ranting and raving in opposition when the Conservatives sold it. He neglected to mention at the time: "Elect me, and I'll stop ranting and raving about it!!!"

 

Fidel

Whatever you do, dont blame the galactically sssssstupid and corrupt federal Liberals for selling us all down the river in 1994, and the federal Tories in 1989. Because it just won't fly with some anonymous babblers. They'll be having none of it.

sandpiper

Yeah, that is what I'm suggesting, Unionist. What's the process for nationalizing a corporation in Canada, if it doesn't mean buying it back at market prices. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just an uneducated leftist.

Unionist

sandpiper wrote:

Yeah, that is what I'm suggesting, Unionist. What's the process for nationalizing a corporation in Canada, if it doesn't mean buying it back at market prices. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just an uneducated leftist.

There's no "process". Someone tables a draft bill (it helps if it's the government, because money is involved), it's debated in the house, and it becomes law. I'm not sure what "market prices" means. For example, when the Liberal government privatized CN in 1995, they first used taxpayers' money to pay off its entire debt of around $1.5 billion, thus providing prospective shareholders (most of them in the U.S.) with a handsome gift, besides selling the shares at bargain-basement prices. So, if we were to nationalize a business that we had just privatized, and if suddenly it was "worth" tonnes more than we had got for it, I'd be awfully suspicious, wouldn't you??? But rather than be suspicious, the government could just offer to buy it back for the same amount it had sold it for, perhaps adding in the value of any proven capital improvements and maybe the increase in CPI. That would be fair, right? Unless someone had made ill-gotten windfall gains in the interim??

There, that's one process that could be used.

sandpiper

I'm still not understanding you, Unionist. Sorry to waste valuable bandwidth, but if the government sold CN, or NS Power, or MB Tel at bargain-basement prices, why would a corporation be so stupid as to sell it back at the same price? Privatization of the public good fucking sucks, but how does a government bill get around buying back a company at a price the market does not dictate?

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

sandpiper wrote:

 A shame it was sold, but now it's gone.

Sorry - where has it gone? Are you actually suggesting the people of Manitoba don't have the ability to buy it back, at a price set by the people of Manitoba?

It's done all the time, we can be sure. What the CCF would have done is expand public corporations and financed the buy-back of public utilities that way. Cant do it under NAFTA/Liberal Party rules. Does anyone remember Chretien signing NAFTA with bubba in '93? I think I see at least one blank stare in the headlights.

Quote:
If being in power still leaves you feeling impotent, perhaps winning elections ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Impotence at the national level on down is made possible by CUSFTA, NAFTA, WTO etc, and is only of the self-imposed variety of impotence when enforced by the two old line parties which signed us all up for nation wide abstinence from public economic and social programs expansion. It's only fake impotence when the two old line parties are the ones doing all the faking in Ottawa.

Fidel

Yes, lefties, when did TC Douglas ever pull a Venezuelan style nationalisation at the provincial level? And even then they'd have to have unlimited powers for raising corporate taxes to make that bluff seem real to CEO's and shareholders, foreign and domestic all.

Unionist

.

Unionist

Can someone explain to sandpiper that governments can introduce legislation? And that's what makes winning elections and forming the government something of interest to political parties?

Perhaps someone can remind sandpiper of the time when government fixed the price of gasoline? And wages? And prices in general? And how it still does so in many spheres? Like marketing boards?

And how government expropriates people's homes which stand in the way of "progress", without paying the price that the homeowners demand (which is how it usually works in the so-called divine market, right, if you don't get your price, you don't have to sell)????

Sandpiper: The government passes a law enabling it to buy back MTS at whatever price it likes. Of course, there are negotiations, you try to be fair, you maybe follow a process like I outlined above. But as is the case when they what to rip down your humble dwelling to make way for a highway, not selling is not an option.

Can someone help me please - or have we all turned into the kinds of wimps who think that it's easy for governments to sell our resources and all we have created, but impossible to get it back?

sandpiper

Uh, sorry for offending you Unionist. I guess that's why I lurk and don't post. Peace.

Unionist

No offence, sandpiper. I guess I got frustrated having to explain that governments have the power to take over businesses, just as they have the power to give them away. Remember medicare? Public auto insurance in Manitoba? I sincerely didn't realize I needed to explain that point on this board. My mistake.

 

Fidel

No offense, U, but youre not making any sense. Youll have ta find some other way of sliding around FTA-NAFTA in order to pin all the blame on Doer and other provincial NDP guvs since that time. What would Tommy do? Apparently you havent considered that either.

Unionist

There's no blame, Fidel. There's just a conviction among some people here that governments can sell out, but they can't make things good again. If we believed that, we wouldn't even have minimum wage laws. FTA-NAFTA-the Nuclear Bomb would stop us dead in our tracks. We'd have to accept the lowest wages in the world - the invisible hand of the market. Fidel, I don't expect the Libs and Cons to stand up for Canada and for working people. I do, however, expect the NDP to walk the talk - not make up excuses for walking backwards.

 

Fidel

That certainly sounds good. But what practical advice would you have for NDP provincials who might want to consider challenging international trade rules that have pressured them to lower corporate taxes and prevented public sector expansion since the 1990's? I thought FTA-NAFTA and WTO is the law of the land? You might like to explain to us how Tommy and CCF would go about financing these new fangled provincializations of former public utilities,  expansion of public sector economy and social programs let alone skirting federal securities laws. Cuba, for example, doesnt have a trade deal with the US. And there are expatriated Cubans still claiming they own land and assets in Cuba, even though they are delinquent from paying Cuban taxes for several decades. What would Tommy do in this day and age? I think he'd say we need to fight for the purse strings in Ottawa, and renegotiate those trade deals in the interests of the Canadian public. I think that's what Tommy would fight for. The good fight aint easy, but it does need to be fought. I'm voting NDP.

Doug

Stockholm wrote:
Imagine if Judy W-L ran for the leadership and won and Gary Doer decided to run federally in her seat - just for the fun of it. Forget about any talk of Doer ever being federal leader - he speaks no French and that disqualifies him - no ifs, ands or buts!

 

I don't think that Stephen Harper spoke it too very well when he started out. If Doer's a good learner, it's possible. Assuming he wants the job, which is iffy. Provincial popularity hasn't translated too well to federal politics before.

Unionist

I admit I don't understand a word of what you are saying, Fidel, when you (for years) throw up your hands and explain why provincial governments aren't capable of doing anything - when property rights are under provincial jurisdiction in this country. But I don't want to continue this conversation, because if the NDP can't nationalize the wealth of a province (even the wealth that was given away the day before), it shouldn't run for office. Or, it should truthfully explain to voters: "We hate what the Tories did, but if elected, we can't fix it." Trouble is, that's not the truth. They can fix it, but they're scared of what that would mean. Tommy Douglas wasn't scared - even Ed Schreyer showed more nerve in the face of universal business opposition than that.

So back to Gary Doer - I say High Commissioner to Australia, then G-G. Why not - is he overqualified?

 

Fidel

Tommy Douglas wasnt afraid to expand public sector services and economy, because there were no neoliberal free trade laws in his day. It took the CCF, fighting the good fight, several terms in power to bring in socialized medicine. The doctors and medical associations and Liberal Party fought them every step of the way. What youre suggesting that Doer do today did not occur in CCF led Saskatchewan at any time. The CCF played by the rules and won by the rules. They made previous governments look like the bad managers of provincial affairs that they were, and the CCF was rewarded for it with five governments in a row. Neither Rome nor Saskatchewan was built in a day in the absence of neoliberal trade rules for globalization.

Youre trying to tell us that things in general are the same today as they were in the good old days of the CCF. I dont believe that. Tommy said there would come a day when Canadians would run out of heating fuel, and we'd turn on our kitchen taps to just trickles of water. I think Tommy could see the day when Canadians would be shackled by US-friendly trade deals like CUSFTA and NAFTA.

Doug

genstrike wrote:

N.Beltov wrote:
What did Gary Doer introduce?

A billion dollars in tax cuts which benefit primarily corporations and the rich?

Oh, I guess that was probably a rhetorical question

 

There were larger cuts in both Ontario and Alberta, the big economic centres to each side of Manitoba. Context is important.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

 What youre suggesting that Doer do today did not occur in CCF led Saskatchewan at any time. The CCF played by the rules and won by the rules.

In 1975, NDP-led Saskatchewan announced that it would forcibly take over the potash industry if the foreign owners held out for too high a price. With that legal gun to the owners' heads, it was able to negotiate very attractive purchase prices and the publicly owned Potash Corporation acquired the lion's share of the productive capacity.

Oh, but that was back in the day when our enemies were 95 lb. weaklings, and fearsome Socialism stalked the land unopposed.

Today, the slogan is: "Elect us, pretty please, and we'll do nothing because they won't let us."

But don't let historic facts interfere with your legend, Fidel.

 

Fidel

Doug wrote:

genstrike wrote:

N.Beltov wrote:
What did Gary Doer introduce?

A billion dollars in tax cuts which benefit primarily corporations and the rich?

Oh, I guess that was probably a rhetorical question

There were larger cuts in both Ontario and Alberta, the big economic centres to each side of Manitoba. Context is important

The Liberals have done no wrong, Doug. That's just the way it is with the knights who say ni around here. Provincial authority equals federal power in their helmets. Their shrubbery is nationalis.., no, provincialization without the calories. 

 

Unionist

Slow down, Fidel, and do try to discuss the issues. Just a friendly reminder.

Blakeney threatened the potash owners with expropriation, and they caved. Schreyer stared down the entire auto insurance industry and destroyed them overnight - with a law. Were you playing hookey when they taught that history?

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

 What youre suggesting that Doer do today did not occur in CCF led Saskatchewan at any time. The CCF played by the rules and won by the rules.

In 1975, NDP-led Saskatchewan announced that it would forcibly take over the potash industry if the foreign owners held out for too high a price. With that legal gun to the owners' heads, it was able to negotiate very attractive purchase prices and the publicly owned Potash Corporation acquired the lion's share of the productive capacity.

Oh, but that was back in the day when our enemies were 95 lb. weaklings, and fearsome Socialism stalked the land unopposed.

Today, the slogan is: "Elect us, pretty please, and we'll do nothing because they won't let us."

But don't let historic facts interfere with your legend, Fidel.

Again you seem to have a deliberate blind spot for international trade laws in place today that didnt exist in 1975. I dont know what to say to babblers like you anymore. You just dont make sense, and you certainly dont know your CCF history in Saskatchewan. Devine's crooked government ended up pawning off the potash for a song. You shouldnt be so hard on those federal Liberals. They might have been corrupt and stoogeocratic about giving the country away, but like Grant Devine's jailbirds they at least they made a bit of cutter on the side.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Well reading this thread Fidel you are in fact saying that there is no point in electing any progressive government because their hands are tied by NAFTA etc.  So why should anyone care about the NDP then? Because our politicians accept your view of the world we are losing voters ever election because they are listening to the message and agree that there is no point to electoral politics. 

Since you clearly belief that an elected social democratic government can't accomplish anything meaningful why are you such a partisan?

Wilf Day

Gary Doer became president of the Manitoba Government Employees' Association in 1979, when he was only 31. He served in this capacity until 1986, when he ran for MLA for the NDP, was elected, and promptly joined the cabinet under Premier Pawley. Two years later, as Pawley's government disintegrated, he became NDP leader, and saved the party from total disaster, coming third but holding the balance of power with 12 seats. It took another 11 years before he led the party back to power in his fifth campaign as leader.

Odd that a man with his background has been able to be seen as centrist and anti-labour. When I first saw him at an NDP convention, he was a bit of a rabble-rouser.

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Well reading this thread Fidel you are in fact saying that there is no point in electing any progressive government because their hands are tied by NAFTA etc.  So why should anyone care about the NDP then? Because our politicians accept your view of the world we are losing voters ever election because they are listening to the message and agree that there is no point to electoral politics.

So why did dozens of Liberal government lawyers and Chretien even bother to sign NAFTA if it's just a loosely worded set of guidelines only that you two babblers suggest that it is? What was all that stink about Chretien making his party out to be the most anti-FTA and anti-GST party of any leading up to the 1993 election? Why did voter turnout in Canada drop off after Canadians realized the Liberals lied about opposing Mulroney and that wing of the party's very neoliberal agenda? Were the 1990's just a figment of all our imaginations?

Quote:
Since you clearly belief that an elected social democratic government can't accomplish anything meaningful why are you such a partisan?

Do social democrats in Sweden, Norway or Denmark have to deal with top-down federal-provincial politics and ridiculous trade deals between their countries and the USSA? I dont think so. There is something called federal and national level politics with real consequences for economic and social conditions  in Canada, and the rotten eggs roll downhill from Ottawa.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

sandpiper wrote:

I'm still not understanding you, Unionist. Sorry to waste valuable bandwidth, but if the government sold CN, or NS Power, or MB Tel at bargain-basement prices, why would a corporation be so stupid as to sell it back at the same price? Privatization of the public good fucking sucks, but how does a government bill get around buying back a company at a price the market does not dictate?

Wikepeida is useually a good start for research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

--------------------------

A key issue in nationalization is payment of compensation to the former owner. The most controversial nationalizations, known as expropriations, are those where no compensation, or an amount far below the likely market value of the nationalized assets, is paid. Many nationalizations through expropriation have come after revolutions. * 1917: All U.S. railroads were nationalized as the Railroad Administration during World War I as a wartime measure, but were returned to their private owners almost immediately after the war.
* 1939: Organization of the Tennessee Valley Authority entailed the nationalization of the facilities of the former Tennessee Electric Power Company.
* 1971: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a government-owned corporation created in 1971 for the express purpose of relieving American railroads of their legal obligation to provide inter-city passenger rail service. The (primarily) freight railroads had petitioned to abandon passenger service repeatedly in the decades leading up to Amtrak's formation.
* 1976: The Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), another government corporation, was created to take over the operations of six bankrupt rail lines operating primarily in the Northeast; Conrail was privatized in 1987. Initial plans for Conrail would have made it a truly nationalized system like that during World War I, but an alternate proposal by the Association of American Railroads won out.
* 1980s: Resolution Trust Corporation seized control of hundreds of failed S&L.
* 2001: In response to the September 11 attacks, the then-private airport security industry was nationalized and put under the authority of the Transportation Security Administration.
* 2008: Some economists consider the U.S. government's takeover of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and Federal National Mortgage Association to have been nationalization.[18][19] The conservatorship model used with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is looser and more temporary than nationalization.[20]
* 2009: Some economists consider the U.S. government's actions with regards to Citigroup to have been a partial nationalization.[21] Proposal made that banks like Citigroup be brought under a conservatorship model similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that some of their "good assets" be dropped into newly created "good bank" susidiaries (presumably under new management), and the remaining "bad assets" be left to be managed under the supervision of a conservatorship structure.[20] The U.S. government's actions with regard to General Motors in replacing the CEO with a government approved CEO is likewise being considered as nationalization. [22][23] On June 1, 2009, General Motors filed for bankruptcy, with the United States investing up to $50 billion and taking 60% ownership in the company. President Obama stated that the nationalization was temporary, saying, "We are acting as reluctant shareholders because that is the only way to help GM succeed"[24]

[edit]

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Slow down, Fidel, and do try to discuss the issues. Just a friendly reminder.

Blakeney threatened the potash owners with expropriation, and they caved. Schreyer stared down the entire auto insurance industry and destroyed them overnight - with a law. Were you playing hookey when they taught that history?

I only asked you how they might swing financing CCF style in the event that tiny Manitoba renationalises public utilities that have been privatized and even capitalized. I didnt think it was that tough a question for our in-house knowitalls. As for post CCF Saskatchewan and Ed Schreyer/pre-FTA-NAFTA era Manitoba, sure they could stare down insurance and potash industry owners. That was then and this is now. When Philmon's crooks pawned MTS, for example,  to well-heeled Manitobans, they made a fortune flipping MTS stocks on the market. Then the individual MTS shares fell into the hands of foreign corporations and investment jackals in the US. Shares went up some more, and so did requests from the newly privatized Man Telephone company to jack up customer rates.

And now that foreign investment jackals have their mitts on MTS, theyve established a foreign presence in Manitoba's telephone and telecom industry. Now if the government tries to compete or even force them out, they can sue all those taxpayers in tiny Manitoba for loss of current profitablity as well as future revenues theyve not yet gouged Manitobans for. And the trade dispute tribunal wouldnt be in Manitoba or even Canada for that matter. Guess where? Isnt NAFTA wonderful? It has little to do with free trade and is more about those private property laws you made reference to above. Things have changed since 1975, Unionist. Have you picked up a newspaper since then?

NorthReport

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

Before the inevitable attacks start, let me just say thank you.

I hope that Ontario one day is lucky enough to have as fine a Premier as Gary Doer.

One of the many little games the msp play is that there will be few attacks on Doer now he's leaving. They would only attack him if he were staying.

George Victor

I'm afraid, u, that the meaning of the Chicago School, explained so patiently by Naomi Klein and by Robert Reich is quite lost on you.  I never see you reference them, so perhaps you have not tried to come to grips with their ideas. But I'd have thought that you would have been into Reich by now, since he has been writing for years about the disappearance of an effective union force in the U.S. They are talking about a period, beginning in the early 1970s, when international finance capital, using your and your union's savings, began to call the shots. And last winter, much of those savings went down the drain.

Unions began losing their swat, and the buying power of the average Joe and Jill stopped growing at the same time.  And in a convention in B.C., Tommy and a lot of other New Democrats stated that we were going to have to re-organize because the dumb assessment of the 1960s - that we were all going to have to learn how to deal with a lot of leisure time - was not going to happen. What a shock for us all.

Yep, suddenly the provinces were also competing for that capital, looking to entice the corporation that employed you (well, not you, because obviously the public service has been able to survive apart from the private sector collapse, so far) . Doer survived because he realized that Manitoba, with a good half of its population in Winnipeg, would not stand the chance of a snowball in hell unless business there could employ people.  It made sure that the cost of electrical power was the lowest in the country, and built on that.

Please cut the nit-picking, picayune and tiresome tirade about yet another New Democratic administration letting us all down. Read about what has happened to the structure of capitalism and try to discover with others how we can all weather the next few years as capital gradually comes to the realization that there is one force more powerful than itself - and the poor folks scurrying to save their pensions will have to come to this understanding as well.

Saving ourselves as a species in the face of environmental breakdown is gradually coming to be uppermost in the minds of many, if not most.  Just hope that the governing folks in your bailiwick are New Democrats and not neo-con as all come to that realization.

Catch up, u, with a reading break on the political economy of the present, please.

--------------------------

As for Gary Doer, if he is in line for a posting in Washington, as the media scuttlebutt suggests this morning, then he commits the unforgiveable, just as Stephen Lewis did in '84 in accepting Mulroney's appointment of him to the U.N. ambassadorship - and then accepting testing of the cruise missile along the course of the Mackenzie River. And that would be taken as further proof of the perfidy of some social democrats, a failure of leadership that is letting down the cause.  As though a leader does not have to be elected from among the Great Unread.

 

Caissa

I was CFS-O Chair in the early times (92-93) of Rae's reign. This was before he had abandoned any pretense of being on the Left.

Has there ever been an NDP premier who was not a great disappointment to the Left?

George Victor

Do you think they would have been elected if they had not given an ear to the Great Unread, Caissa? And now, with everyone rushing home from work to check up on their investments, perhaps times they are a changin' for social democrats, as Doer said yesterday?

Pierre C yr

Woha, Doer as ambassador for the tories in Washington?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/08/28/doer-ambassador-washington.html

 

Manitoba Premier Gary Doer will be introduced as Canada's next ambassador to the United States during a visit to Ottawa Friday, CBC News has learned.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is scheduled to meet with Doer at 9:30 a.m. ET.

Doer announced Thursday that he would be stepping down as the NDP premier of Manitoba after 10 years in the job.

He didn't say what his future would hold, but joked: "I'm not going to be watching soaps."

Michael Wilson has held the ambassador's post since March 2006.

If Doer goes end up with the Washington job, he would be following the career path of former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna.

The Liberal politician also stepped down on his 10th anniversary of becoming premier, and then went on to represent Canada in the United States.

Pierre C yr

I see Im late as usual with news... maybe its Harpers way to make up for his partisan senate appointments? But yeah do all NDP premiers have to end up going to the libs or tories? Or governing like them short of simply maintaining what little changes previous NDP'ers brought to their provinces? If the only ndp premiers that get elected have to run basically as libertories whats the point? Im wondering what Darrell Dexter has planned now... it doesnt seem like any reform is going to come from him... is it just about winning and staying in power?

Is the center so well defined in politics now that it is moot for parties to even try other than during elections or in policy platform that dont see the light of day in actual legislation? Have we all given up? Or simply have our parties tired of waiting for us to elect them on their official agendas?

So they run from the left and rule from the right ... or center... as we probably mostly all fully expect them to do now... at least until we have a real depression that can again move things forward?

 

 

genstrike

Pierre C yr wrote:

Woha, Doer as ambassador for the tories in Washington?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/08/28/doer-ambassador-washington.html

Manitoba Premier Gary Doer will be introduced as Canada's next ambassador to the United States during a visit to Ottawa Friday, CBC News has learned.

No big surprise, I guess Harper wanted someone who was pro-war.

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:

Odd that a man with his background has been able to be seen as centrist and anti-labour. When I first saw him at an NDP convention, he was a bit of a rabble-rouser.

I first encountered him at a CLC Convention in Montreal - in 1984 I believe - when he was still president of the MGEA. Although I don't recall meeting him personally, he seemed a polished speaker.

One event stands out. A couple of Manitoba delegates spoke to issues with the Pawley NDP government (cutbacks in social services - fairly minor if memory serves - being too close to the business community on something or other, etc.). One mentioned some sort of conflict between the government and the MGEA (representing Manitoba public service workers), involving job cuts and pressure during collective bargaining. When he was done, Gary Doer took the floor and said, "these delegates do not speak for the MGEA" - and proceeded to praise the provincial government.

Two years later, he rejoined the NDP, got elected, and was immediately named to Pawley's cabinet.

 

 

Unionist

Unionist wrote:

What about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Schreyer]High Commissioner to Australia[/url]?

You people have no sense of tradition.

 

I hate to quote myself - but how do you like that prediction, made yesterday? Close, or what?

What a low-life this man Doer is proving to be.

 

Stockholm

I think its a good appointment. Now that Obama and the Democrats are in power in the US, it makes sense to have a Canadian ambassador who is going to have good chemistry with the administration in Washington. I wish Doer well and I think he'll be good for the job for years to come - esp. once the opposition coalition atkes power in Ottawa after the next election.

remind remind's picture

I think the key word in your sentence is "man" unionist. Seems to me this is a typical man thing for Doer to do. As it is always about what the individual man's needs, desires and wants are, be damned about anything else.

Male privilege and their feathering their own nest is always of primary importance, the greater good never is, when considering advancement moves.

 

jas

Unionist wrote:

But I don't want to continue this conversation, because if the NDP can't nationalize the wealth of a province (even the wealth that was given away the day before), it shouldn't run for office. Or, it should truthfully explain to voters: "We hate what the Tories did, but if elected, we can't fix it." Trouble is, that's not the truth. They can fix it, but they're scared of what that would mean.

Did they campaign on buying back the MTS? And would this really have been a priority? We know that a position like this would not have helped them get in power bcause they got in power anyway. Might it have hurt their chances? Some people here don't care about their parties actually getting into a position of influence. It's all about the "principle", and being Principled while standing and shouting from the sidelines.

I think Doer's NDP has been about maintaining and growing the things that are working for the province while walking the centre-left line to remain in power. As far as I'm concerned that's how you do it. And that's how you get to change public policy. By remaining in power and making changes slowly and steadily. Maybe that's a Manitoba way of doing things.

Under the NDP, Manitoba Hydro has grown, investing in Wuskwatim dam, committing to two new projects, a new transmission line, and finding new markets in the U.S. while also experimenting in other sources like wind. Manitoba Hydro is publicly owned and will bring in revenue for the province for many decades to come, as long as it remains publicly owned.

 

duncan cameron

Harper only speaks Republican, and has left himself vulnerable to the Liberals on Canada-U.S. issues. The Ignatieff Liberals do not seem to know how to exploit the opening. Harper moves first, and cuts off potential criticism by, as Stock says, linking to the Democrats through a New Democrat Ambassador. Harper is smarter than he is given credit for being.

Overall having a New Democrat at the centre of the key Canada-U.S. relationship helps the party's credibility, though it does not make things easier for the Layton team in Ottawa.

What's next? Fidel as central bank governor?

Unionist

remind wrote:

Male privilege and their feathering their own nest is always of primary importance, the greater good never is, when considering advancement moves.

 

You may well have a point. I was thinking of Audrey McLaughlin going to work for the NDI, but that was pretty minor and long after she left the leadership. Nothing to compare with the nest-feathering of Schreyer and Doer, of course!

Since this thread will close soon, I've opened a new one and would appreciate hearing babblers' comment:

[url=NDP">http://rabble.ca/babble/national-news/ndp-premier-quits-become-harpers-e... premier quits to become Harper's envoy to Washington[/url]

Stockholm

Ambassador are apolitical. He isn't "Harper's envoy" he is Canada's envoy and i suspect eh will be there for years to come regardless of who is PM.

genstrike

jas wrote:
Under the NDP, Manitoba Hydro has grown, investing in Wuskwatim dam, committing to two new projects, a new transmission line, and finding new markets in the U.S. while also experimenting in other sources like wind. Manitoba Hydro is publicly owned and will bring in revenue for the province for many decades to come, as long as it remains publicly owned.

Too bad they used what is essentially a P3 to build the wind farms - instead of being owned and operated by Hydro it is owned by a private company and Hydro is obligated to buy the power from them.  I talked to a guy from Hydro about it, and he admitted that there is no technical reason for this arrangement, it is solely a political decision.

Doug

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:

 What youre suggesting that Doer do today did not occur in CCF led Saskatchewan at any time. The CCF played by the rules and won by the rules.

In 1975, NDP-led Saskatchewan announced that it would forcibly take over the potash industry if the foreign owners held out for too high a price. With that legal gun to the owners' heads, it was able to negotiate very attractive purchase prices and the publicly owned Potash Corporation acquired the lion's share of the productive capacity.

Oh, but that was back in the day when our enemies were 95 lb. weaklings, and fearsome Socialism stalked the land unopposed.

That was back in the day when foreign investors in an industry couldn't sue for lost profit due to a forced nationalization. It makes it just a touch expensive.

George Victor

 

But we will have to be able to return to a position of political sovereignty over resources and social services someday as the global pressure on both areas comes to demand it. 

Right?

Heck, the U.S. practices it now (see China's attempts to muscle in on their resources...more successfully in Canada).

But how do we institute a U.S. nationalism (without the flags and drums) here in fearsome old Canuckistan?(excuse the drift)

Unionist

Doug wrote:

That was back in the day when foreign investors in an industry couldn't sue for lost profit due to a forced nationalization. It makes it just a touch expensive.

Doug, any expropriation legislation can include a bar against civil redress. Property rights aren't in our constitution (yet), so no court could overturn such a clause. I don't know, honestly, how any NDP supporter can claim with a straight face that nationalization is not just a bad idea (which some do), but it's unlawful (which is a new one on me). With advisors like these, who needs enemies?

 

Pages

Topic locked