Public is paying for Trudeau Nannies

374 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

oh nonsense about "trying to repond to every letter". no government official does so why the need for Sophie to?????

Liberal media trying to spin this as if Sophie is Michelle Obama and look at what she gets if fkn nonsense, get the fuck over trying to make Canada into the USA so Sophie can have MORE staff.

i'm really sick of well off allegedly 'progressive' women sympathizing with her "plight" too. hellooooo she isn't in a "plight". seeing as how she just whinned publically she can also whine publically and say 'STOP writing me so many letters, i'm a busy mom and wife'. but no they want her to expand the Liberal brand. kinda like the 1.6 million more Justin needs for IT.

lagatta

Yes, here is what Niki Ashton actually said. Nothing "hateful" or "envious" about it:

The NDP’s Niki Ashton said it shows a “troubling pattern” with Trudeau and his wife, whether it’s the “reliance on caregivers charged to the public purse when in fact so many Canadians don’t have access to that same kind of child-care arrangement,” or whether his wife is expressing being overwhelmed.

“We’re seeing again a disconnect; this feeling of being overwhelmed, when in fact what you should be talking about is . . . the feeling that Canadian women face on a daily basis of being overwhelmed.”

“It’s up to the prime minister and his family to figure out their own details,” said Ashton, “The focus should be on what Canadian women face on a daily basis and how the federal government can support Canadian women.”

I do agree that in monetary terms, giving more staff to Mme Grégoire is a trifle compared with serious expenditure. But I am also very much opposed to the drift towards a "presidential" system. It is another terrible thing Harper contributed to.

I'm a republican (not a "Republican"!) but think that a democratic republic would also also better served by a symbolic head of state rather than a head of government who also has the trappings of head of state. The PM is an MP and first minister; in theory first among equals.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I think Quizzical and Niki Ashton lay this out pretty clearly. The issue is the disconnect here. I think that Ms Gregoire's statements are a manifistation of the sense of entitlement that is characteristic of LPC partisans. This expectation that as, "Canada's Natural Governing Party", it only makes sense to give them whatever they want, because after all, they speak for all Canadians, even if most of us don't know it.

I also agree with what Quizzcal noted, that Ms Gregoire is NOT Michelle Obama, and with lagatta's exprssion of cooncern regarding drift. I think this is simply more LPC spin, more of trying to cement the Trudeau's as Canada's defacto "First Couple". The MSM ccontinues to be complicit with its incessant, unfailing fawning over these two, privilleged, Canadians. The shame is it allows the Libs to deflect attention from any of their failings such as the LPC oppostion ot a 15 dollar Federal Minimum wage, or National Daycare.

Boh Quzzical and Lagatta lay this out really well. It is too damn bad that most of the Libs on the board insist on keeping up their name calling towards the rest of us, and display of open contempt for anyone who dare challenge the idea that Trudeau and his gang of merry men/women, should be called out on anything.

Given that the NDP is at 11%, it is clear most Canadians polled are supportive of the Libs; that is why the Libs are trying so hard to solidify the idea of Trudeau and his wife of the "First Couple", before the reality of Trudeau's right wing, neo-con, real political agenda sinks in. This is simply more of the same LPC garbage we've seen in the past, thought admittedly, truly on steroids this time!

I stand by what I said, I hate the Libs and I hate Trudeau. They are liars, who set expectations they have no intention of keeping, but smply do so out of their unbriddled lust for power and feeling of superiority. A pox on their house.

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:
A pox on their house.

Their house (24 Sussex) is currently being renovated, so the poor darlings are stranded in the two level 22-room Rideau Cottage for the time being.

quizzical

22 rooms but yet we're supposed to believe Sophie is relegated to a corner of the dinning table lmaoooooooooooo.

can't believe a fkn word any Liberal states.

as for those who think because we indicate she DOESN'T have a job we're misogynists they can drown their brains in their own stupidity.

truth is she doesn't have a job in our government reality either paid or unpaid. it's the Liberals who want her to build their brand  at our expenseand make us believe the Trudeau's are Canadian royalty for everah. 

6079_Smith_W

Arthur Cramer wrote:

It is too damn bad that most of the Libs on the board insist on keeping up their name calling towards the rest of us, and display of open contempt for anyone who dare challenge the idea that Trudeau and his gang of merry men/women, should be called out on anything.

I think the liberal partisans have pretty much kept their noses out of this most recent discussion. Those of us who have raised counter points have done it for different reasons than partisanship.

As for the house and entitlement, would you all prefer Trudeau act like his precedessor and refuse to leave for years on end, preventing those renovations from being done?

 

 

lagatta

Well no, of course the Trudeau-Grégoire family did well to leave 24 Sussex. Harper's clinging to a decrepit mansion was just weird.

However, the "dining-room table" story was odd as well. I live in a 3 1/2 flat (1-bedroom) but I have a home office. Thus, I have no living room. I receive guests in my largeish kitchen. Obviously the Grégoire-Trudeaus have to do more formal entertaining, but they have plenty of room for a couple of home offices, and a study for the kids.

6079_Smith_W

Wasn't even aware of this at the time (which is telling, because there was no media storm) but I just found out this morning that Laureen Teskey also changed her public name when her husband became prime minister.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Interesting take on the issue on rabble.

Quote:

Of course most of the people doing this unpaid labour are caring for ailing relatives or making sure their families are well fed, not figuring out which Canadian-designed gown to wear to which state function. And it's an important difference.

Telling Grégoire-Trudeau that that she should consider herself lucky and stop whining reeks of "get back in the kitchen." But in most ways she is very lucky. 

She is far from being the only wife in this country overwhelmed by the demands on her time and many of us can't afford a babysitter, let alone a pair of nannies. 

If Grégoire-Trudeau doesn't step up and fight for the millions of others across Canada whose needs are much more urgent than her own then her brand of feminism is catastrophically flawed.

The progressive position is not that Grégoire-Trudeau is asking for too much, it's that she's asking for far too little. We need to recognize the value the unpaid labour done by her and by every single person who is tasked with the care and support of those around them.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2016/05/sophie-gr%C3%A9g...

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If Grégoire-Trudeau doesn't step up and fight for the millions of others across Canada whose needs are much more urgent than her own then her brand of feminism is catastrophically flawed.

So we agree that she has no formal role or job in the current government, and some of us might even resent the fact that having married someone who DOES have such a job, she gets attention and perks.

But we also think she should use her pulpit to argue for a national childcare plan.

I'm certainly not arguing AGAINST a national childcare plan, but if she has no role and no job and no significance, why would we want her waxing philosophic on what we should do and how we should live?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Nope that is not the point of the article. The point is that if she wants a soap box at public expense then it needs to be for a higher purpose than merely enhancing her husband's image. If its just to be a power celebrity couple enhancing his reelection chances then she needs to look for another source of financing. Personally I don't want a First Lady in our system but then I also dislike the cult of the leader.

Trudeau as PM he appears to be like the BC Liberal Premier and is spending most of his time flying here and there to photo-ops that keep him in the news but are not really working on the problems that our government should be dealing with.

quizzical

i don't want a first man in our system anymore than a first lady.

it's none of our business to whom any of our politicians are married to.

they're there to do a job as our employees. i don't care about the rarified atmosphere  they think they're in.  treating them as celebrities just feeds the bs of non-existent specialness.

it's othering on a whole level we need to get rid of and the only way to do it is to make a choice to change our own phoney perceptions.

either everyone means something or nobody does. there's no life more special than anyone elses.

like the cult of royalty. they're business specialists who specialize in telling the world how special they are.

swallow swallow's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Wasn't even aware of this at the time (which is telling, because there was no media storm) but I just found out this morning that Laureen Teskey also changed her public name when her husband became prime minister.

Just this morning? It's mentioned upthread. ;) 

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laureen_Harper&oldid=36827389... look, Wikipedia called her Laureen Teskey back in the day![/url]

I am curious if Laureen Teskey will go back to using the name that, presumably, is still her legal name. And we know for a fact that Sophie Gregoire's legal anme does not include "Trudeau" with or without hyphens. 

Let's refer to these people by their names, not what their parties have insisted on calling them. 

At the risk of using overly macho language - Joe Clark was the only political leader man enough to let his wife use her own name and stand up to party pressure to force a woman to change her name. Because it was 1979, I guess, and 2016 isn't so liberal as those days were. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I think that Quizzical again nails it. I believe that her "mis-statement", wasn't. It was a calculated move on the part of the PMO to illicit support and sympathy for Ms Gregoire to act as a defacto "First Lady", with all the positive ramifications it would have for the political future of her husband on one hand, and the Liberal Party, on the other. This was a cynical, calculated move, that I'm sure willl work out for the PM, and his minions, exacatly the way it was intended. I'm a cynic? Dam rights I am! This more of the Obamaization of Canadian Politics being attempted by the Liberals, and enabled by that fawning excuse of a MSM, we have in this country.

mark_alfred

Another one begging for more money for extra administration staff, this time Peter Harder, Liberal point man in Senate, denied extra office money.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-harder-senate-money-denied-1.3586533

Seems to be a pattern emerging:

Harder and Grégoire wrote:
Please sir, I want some more.

Trudeau wrote:
What!?

6079_Smith_W

swallow wrote:

Just this morning? It's mentioned upthread. ;)

Yes, I see you mentioned it Sunday evening. I missed it.

Kind of interesting that every other reference to her here has been "Harper".

Strangely enough, after I posted that I heard them talking about the same thing on CBC, and it was mentioned that Mila Mulroney had an office in Langevin Block. While she did attract attention for her spending, no one got out the pitchforks over her moving right into government.

Since this is a threat to democracy, a royal family cult,  and an americanization of Canada you'd think the creeping metamorphosis would have progressed a bit since then, no?

 

 

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

quizzical wrote:

i don't want a first man in our system anymore than a first lady.

it's none of our business to whom any of our politicians are married to.

they're there to do a job as our employees. i don't care about the rarified atmosphere  they think they're in.  treating them as celebrities just feeds the bs of non-existent specialness.

it's othering on a whole level we need to get rid of and the only way to do it is to make a choice to change our own phoney perceptions.

either everyone means something or nobody does. there's no life more special than anyone elses.

like the cult of royalty. they're business specialists who specialize in telling the world how special they are.

This is so right it deserves to be repeated. I especially like "treating them as celebrities just feeds the bs of non-existent specialness." Thanks, quizzical.

quizzical

swallow wrote:
Joe Clark was the only political leader man enough to let his wife use her own name and stand up to party pressure to force a woman to change her name. Because it was 1979, I guess, and 2016 isn't so liberal as those days were

mom says we've regressed all the time.

mark_alfred

swallow wrote:

At the risk of using overly macho language - Joe Clark was the only political leader man enough to let his wife use her own name and stand up to party pressure to force a woman to change her name. Because it was 1979, I guess, and 2016 isn't so liberal as those days were. 

Yes.  Or, Maureen McTeer was the only PM-spouse woman enough to tell Joe, the party apparatus, and the media to either use her proper name or to go fuck themselves.

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:
swallow wrote:
At the risk of using overly macho language - Joe Clark was the only political leader man enough to let his wife use her own name and stand up to party pressure to force a woman to change her name. Because it was 1979, I guess, and 2016 isn't so liberal as those days were. 

Yes.  Or, Maureen McTeer was the only PM-spouse woman enough to tell Joe, the party apparatus, and the media to either use her proper name or to go fuck themselves.

good point

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture
lagatta

Well, her yoga sun-saluting stuff was a bit grating, but I actually like the courge. The squash is one of the Three Sisters, the pillars of the agricultural peoples in North America, and the squash is important throughout the Americas. Sophie Grégoire would be right to say that it is a salute to the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. 

 

 

MegB

I have no issue with Gregoire having another staff member, but it should be paid for by the Liberal party, coming out of their budget for PR and propaganda.

Pages