Stephane Dion's Appointments
Today Stephane Dion made more appointments in order to reach out to various candidates in the leadership race. Gerard Kennedy was given election readiness and renewal, which seemed like a good choice considering he was the candidate he ran the most on renewing the party so I am glad this will be put to use. Martha Hall Findlay was given platform outreach chair, which I also think was a good choice, although I think she would do well in pretty much any role. For writing the platform, Bob Rae will be responsible, while Scott Brison will be the co-chair. I think these were good choices when put together since having one from the left (Bob Rae) and one from the right (Scott Brison) shows the party is a big tent, but also will ensure the platform is one that appeals to both the centre-left and centre-right since we need both of those groups to win, not just one. If only Bob Rae were appointed, I would be worried about the party drifting too far to the left, but with Scott Brison being the co-chair, I am confident a good balance will be struck.
The other big issue of the day is the Conservatives fired the Canadian Wheat Board president Adrian Maesner. I am no fan of the heavy handed tactics of the Conservatives at the same time I understand that some in the Tories are frustrated by the fact Prairie wheat and barley farmers must sell through the Wheat Board, while Ontario ones don't. I think the best solution here is to have all fifteen directors elected by the farmers, make the Canadian Wheat Board a completely private organization. The problem is the CWB is a quasi-private organization so the Tories can still argue the government has a legitimate right to interfere in its governance while the Liberals at the same time can say the government should stay out. As a private organization, it would operate much the way a union does. Unions can make membership in the union mandatory for one to work at a job, even if in the private sector, so as a private organization it would be up to the farmers to decide whether the Wheat Board is a dual marketing system, single desk, or open market as well as enforcement would be done by the Wheat Board not the government. I personally favour a dual marketing system, but since I am not a farmer, I don't believe it is my job to decide what system they follow, rather the farmers should decide. I also think another possible compromise is allow farmers the choice, so long as once they leave the Wheat Board, they cannot use it for at least another ten years. In this scenario it would operate much like our health care system, which contrary to public perception, is not actually a pure monopoly, but since doctors have to choose one or the other system, no parallel private system has emerged and I suspect if the Wheat Board operated the same way, over 95% of farmers would still use the Wheat Board while those who do truly believe in choice, would still be able to get what they want.
The other big issue of the day is the Conservatives fired the Canadian Wheat Board president Adrian Maesner. I am no fan of the heavy handed tactics of the Conservatives at the same time I understand that some in the Tories are frustrated by the fact Prairie wheat and barley farmers must sell through the Wheat Board, while Ontario ones don't. I think the best solution here is to have all fifteen directors elected by the farmers, make the Canadian Wheat Board a completely private organization. The problem is the CWB is a quasi-private organization so the Tories can still argue the government has a legitimate right to interfere in its governance while the Liberals at the same time can say the government should stay out. As a private organization, it would operate much the way a union does. Unions can make membership in the union mandatory for one to work at a job, even if in the private sector, so as a private organization it would be up to the farmers to decide whether the Wheat Board is a dual marketing system, single desk, or open market as well as enforcement would be done by the Wheat Board not the government. I personally favour a dual marketing system, but since I am not a farmer, I don't believe it is my job to decide what system they follow, rather the farmers should decide. I also think another possible compromise is allow farmers the choice, so long as once they leave the Wheat Board, they cannot use it for at least another ten years. In this scenario it would operate much like our health care system, which contrary to public perception, is not actually a pure monopoly, but since doctors have to choose one or the other system, no parallel private system has emerged and I suspect if the Wheat Board operated the same way, over 95% of farmers would still use the Wheat Board while those who do truly believe in choice, would still be able to get what they want.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 6:17 PM
9 Comments:
Re: CWB
A farmer who grows 200 acres of wheat could have a bumper crop or get hailed out; these are NOT the main stay of the CWB, and are likely the farmers who DO want the CWB there as they are too small to market their own grain.
The farmers who grow 2000+ acres of wheat are the ones the CWB WANTS to force to sell to the monopoly, and are the ones most likely to NOT want the CWB and can find their own market.
So if there is going to be a vote, average acres grown should give weight to each farmers vote.
That would be fair.
Wilson61 - I believe in the one farmer one vote, although those who haven't farmed in over a year shouldn't be allowed to vote in the plebiscite. I think it is possible farmers would vote for a dual marketing system. In Ontario, the farmers democratically choose such a system and lets remember Alberta is the largest of the prairie provinces and generally where support for a dual marketing system is highest. In addition if the Tories want a dual marketing system, try it first with barley and if it works wheat farmers will come on board later. I don't think you will convince the farmers to move to one instantly, but rather should go for barley first if the farmers choose and wheat later if the farmers so choose.
RE dream team...Bob Rae bad mistake...get rid of him...full of himself ...bad ideas
...For writing the platform, Bob Rae will be responsible, while Scott Brison will be the co-chair
co-chair means 2 equal chairs. don't you mean Scott is the vice-chair?
Anonymous#1 - Not my first choice, but since Dion will make the final decisions I can live with the choice.
Anonymous #2 - My mistake.
I like the ying and yang approach Mr. Dion is taking to his appointments.
Most would agree that Mr. Dion is to the left of centre in his thinking. So it makes some sense that he would have a deputy leader that is to the right of centre as is Mr. Ignatieff.
As well with Mr Rae and Mr. Brison you have that same situation at play. With those two writing the election platform the platform should be able to appeal to most of that broad middle between the Conservatives and the NDP.
I know from my own standpoint having two right-of-centre individuals in such promiment and influential positions makes this fiscal conservative very happy.
Ottlib - I feel the same way, although I think when it comes to Dion being left of centre and Ignatieff being right of centre that is less clear cut. On economic policy, I would actually say Ignatieff is to the left of Dion, but on foreign policy Ignatieff is definitely more conservative.
Certainly Brison and Rae will appeal to the two groups we need most to win which are the centre-left and the centre-right.
On the Canadian Wheat Board..usual Liberal drivel.
"Even Quebec farmers support it," says Dion.
Really? Then make them join on pain of prison too.
uh-huh
Anonymous - I am torn on the Canadian Wheat Board. I support the Tory goal of having a dual marketing system, but I support the Liberal method of having it decided through a plebiscite not imposed by Ottawa. In the case of barley, which is mostly grown in Alberta, I think such a plebiscite could pass as Alberta tends to be very pro-free enterprise. For wheat it would probably fail, but this might be a good thing since you could compare the two side by side and see which one worked better.
Post a Comment
<< Home