Public is paying for Trudeau Nannies

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 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.

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?

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.

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?

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 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?

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 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

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.