babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Why Bob Rae failed

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Why Bob Rae failed
doseq
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1792

posted 28 November 2001 08:17 PM      Profile for doseq     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In response to saskzen's request for a new thread. I was younger at the time of Bob Rae's election so I wasn't an active participant in politics but if I recall correctly, Bob Rae's primary error was being elected in an economic downturn. After a few years of trying to keep his promises he was faced with a severe money shortage and was forced to make tough decisions. In the process of trying to spread the civil service reductions and prevent the loss of jobs (Rae days)he broke a collective bargaining agreement and alienated union support. By the time the economy had turned around in his last year it was too late. People on all sides of the political spectrum were unhappy with him and he was bound to lose.
From: Quebec City | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 28 November 2001 08:33 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Our one of our favourite babblers, John I. Fleming said:
quote:
The incompetence of the Liberals and NDP of the late 1980's and early 1990's were the reason the Common Sense Revolution was borne.

Here, I found I have scooped him :

quote:
Then I read the comments posted here about Rae and how there is a lot of hurt feelings about what he did. What strikes me as curious here is that some of the accusations against Rae I could have sworn I just read in some of these Harris tributes.
So, I naively add two and two together and posit this: Rae was just as surprised as anyone to get elected. He did what any NDP leader would do until, somewhere, he finally saw the writing on the wall. He saw the Common Sense Revolution coming, and hence the Rae Days and stuff. Rae was the proto-Harris.
My memory might be failing me here, but I remember reading that at least some of Harris’s deficit reduction leg work was already in place by Rae. I remember reading accusations that the Harris government fudge the books to make the Rae deficits worse while using things like the 407 sale to make his deficits seem less (while mixing in a booming American economy).
Jeffrey Simpson writes, “It took a while for resentment to grow, and Mike Harris tapped into it. The Liberals and NDP couldn't touch the resentment because they had contributed to it.”
The undercurrent I sometimes get is that Harris was “our own” creation. Rae saw this and fell victim of his leftist affiliation.

I’m with doseq.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 28 November 2001 10:36 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
However, Mr. Fleming won’t agree with this (from the archives so to speak):
It wasn't Harris who saved Ontario
quote:
But did he? Yes, the Ontario economy has been growing at a really fast pace -- 4.2% last year, as Ernie Eves, the Finance Minister, points out in the highlights of his recent budget.
But, it's interesting to note that the Ontario economy grew even faster -- at a rate of 5.5% -- in 1994, when tax cuts were nothing but a gleam in Mike Harris' eye.

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 29 November 2001 02:11 AM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Personally I think it was overly high expectations - that whatever he did people were bound to be disappointed.

and then there was Harris who had not expectations to disappoint. I think you hit on an issue that the NDP and NPI can agree on - Harris sucked. If Canadians define ourselves as not being Americans. How unusual should it be for both the NDP and NPI to define themselves as not being Harris. Let`s consider this an act in unification since I`m sure that both will agree on some of the same faults with the Harris government.


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 29 November 2001 12:13 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
After a few years of trying to keep his promises he was faced with a severe money shortage and was forced to make tough decisions. In the process of trying to spread the civil service reductions and prevent the loss of jobs (Rae days)he broke a collective bargaining agreement and alienated union support.

The promises he was trying to keep were far more fundamental. The only alternatives offered to him at the time were Bob White and Sid Ryan telling him to default on Ontario's debt payments.

Ontario's Deficit was spiraling upwards of 15 billion per year. Rae's only alternative to legislating a union agreement was to begin the massive government layoffs that Harris implemented.

Rae's only mistake was that he didn't recognize that those union leaders who profess to be interested in the good of society focused more on self interest than anybody else.

No way was a union leader or member going to accept wage freezes in order to protect jobs.

They proved they'd rather have it Harris' way. If you think about it, Rae received as much if not more protest than Harris.

This is just more evidence that socialists refuse to accept that self interest is human nature even while they stare at the self interest squarely in the mirror.

All those OPSEU layoffs under Harris would never have happened under Bob Rae, but still you attack Bob Rae.

Whats your new slogan gonna be "We'll protect our right to collective bargaining no matter how many jobs it costs us"

I'm amazed that as a righty on these threads that I am the only one who genuinely respects Bob Rae. I just think he should have seen that he would be crucified for trying to honour his beliefs.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 November 2001 03:10 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excuse me? You're the only one? Holy, I was the one who started the original thread a few months back asking people why they had a problem with Rae when I thought he did a pretty good job!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
doseq
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1792

posted 29 November 2001 03:31 PM      Profile for doseq     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry Michelle I'm new here so I didn't realize that this topic had been covered.

I, too, was not laying blame on Bob Rae, but rather I was pointing out that in an attempt to protect jobs in a dire situation (a good thing) he alienated union support which clearly is a bad thing for a left wing party.

In response to the other points made by Markbo, I find the human nature argument a bit of a whitewash. While it is true that self preservation is a strong, even instinctual, motivation it does not follow that self interest is a world wide driving force in peoples decisions. Examples range from volunteers who do their small part for no money in their neighborhoods to a group like Doctors without borders who clearly don't need to tend to the sick in war torn countries to make a good living. Just because most people are primarily self interested doesn't mean that we all are and even if it is human nature I think we all know many examples of those who rise above it.

In terms of the new slogan for unions, there has been instances in the recent past where unions have offered to break their own agreement for the benefit of their membership and the company (Canadian Airlines, Canada 3000). It is true that this is rare but it should be. A company is driven by maximizing profit. Breaking collectively bargained agreements, if it becomes easily done, could become a new tool for improving profit in a down year instead of a last ditch effort which it should be.


From: Quebec City | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 29 November 2001 04:13 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
After a few years of trying to keep his promises he was faced with a severe money shortage and was forced to make tough decisions.
That is something every NDP government has had to grapple with. That is why it is best to keep expectations reasonable. The PC`s try to use scare tactics that the NDP are "tax and spend" when Romonow was left with a government that was in jail and a province that was broke. If they PC`s know they have no chance in winning what they do is to encourage NDP supporters (during and after the election) to have overly high expectations as what can be accomplished in the short term so that the NDP will be one term wonders and the PC`s can milk the disillusionment for all they can.

Enthusiasm is a good thing - I strive on it - I feed off of it and I cannot pay attention very easily without it. The one problem with enthusiasm is that one can get carried away by it and promise things that cannot be acheived in the short term. I think that sometimes people mistake caution and trying to keep expectations realisitic with "third way" Blair/Cretien like policies. But are people like me who come from a province with a history of consecutive NDP governments overly concerned with being carried away?

Words that the left should stop using:

Radical - there is nothing radical about doing the right thing. You are looking at yourself the way the right sees you.

Reform - transform would be a better word, does not remind one of spam or CRCAP.

Progressive - besides reminding one of Joe Who, it is linear, unidirectional and portrays the idea David Suzuki is trying to fight that progress is always a good thing.

Absolutely - just sick of the word.


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Minerva
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 521

posted 29 November 2001 06:28 PM      Profile for Minerva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right on, Vaudree, keeping your recommendations in my pocket for future reference

Nice you mentioned Romanow, I know the PCs left him with less than nothin' and he turned around the first balanced budget in Canada - in SASKATCHEWAN for Pete's sake. (WITHOUT selling us out, by the way.) Makes me cry 'boo hoo' at the BC and Ontario right-wing parties who go on about how they suffer - as 'have' provinces, I wonder why they can't do better or even as good as Sask?

Also, to go with your list for leftists, how 'bout 'Things to start saying everywhere'
1) right-wing parties are NOT naturally 'fiscally responsible' (Sask. PCs good case in point)
2) let's start asking to whom governments are supposed to be responsible to (hints: the answer is not narrow elite special interests that make up a small minority of the population.)


From: Lotusland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 29 November 2001 06:40 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Also, to go with your list for leftists, how 'bout 'Things to start saying everywhere'
1) right-wing parties are NOT naturally 'fiscally responsible' (Sask. PCs good case in point)

I liked the term Doer used in his speach at the convention "fiscal balance" which indirectly alludes to the fact that the opposition is somehow the opposition is unbalanced.

Remember Mel Lastman and the famous Toronto Blizzard a few years back? No more needs to be said.


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 29 November 2001 11:18 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo:


[You can't see this right now but I'm jumping up and down screaming "does he even read the posts here!"]

[ November 29, 2001: Message edited by: clockwork ]


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 01 December 2001 12:24 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry Michelle. Your absolutely right. Clockwork, why are you so frustrated?

Its funny, Doseq you talk about the realization of self interest as whitewashing while you completely fail to address the point that workers jobs would have been far safer under Rae. That the Union leaders only alternative proposal for defaulting on debt was ludicrous. That everything Bob Rae did was in the best interest of saving jobs.

My only problem with Rae is that I think he was naive to think that unions would support what was in the best interest of workers over what was in the best interest of unions themselves.

Do you really think all of the OPSEU workers whose jobs Harris eliminated were worried about their collective bargaining rights???


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 01 December 2001 01:12 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Clockwork hits a nail squarely on the head:

quote:
Rae was just as surprised as anyone to get elected.

How many times in history have we seen in military or political conflict where the victors are unprepared for victory? It's one of the common strategic mistakes made by people.

I can't blame Rae for that. The finger should be squarely pointed at the party leadership. To think I was out knocking on doors, and sending others out to pound in signs, and knock on doors and sit for hours on the telephone, and the top people didn't have a workable blue print for a post victory strategy.

I think the word stupid applies here.

I knew we were in trouble about day three, when Rae said he trusted the civil service-- a civil service that was populated by DECADES of Tory appointments, to be professional, and not partizan.

Rae's not that naive, he said that because he had no choice but to say that. So, doors that are wide open for Tories in government remained closed to us, and it is amazing anything at all got done at Queens Park in those years.

What should have been done was to have an already developed list of people ready to take over and step in after a mass fireing in the civil service.

Second, the party should have had a fact checking and legal team ready to battle the media. A libel or slander suit for every lie and factual liberty taken would have dulled the hyperbole and the absolute visciousness (that continues to this day). Nothing wrong with commentary based on fact. And, there's lots to take issue with based on fact. But some of the stuff we put up with marked us out to be a bunch of patsies.

I hope it doesn't repeat, given another opportunity.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 01 December 2001 01:46 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can't blame Rae for that. The finger should be squarely pointed at the party leadership.

Tommy, the party leadership was Bob Rae. And to a lesser degree, the handful in his office.
Bob Rae made the first mistake right on his first day... he said, "I am the Premier of all Ontario." (And then went on to forget his constituency; the one that elected him.)
His fatal errors -- plural -- were his reneging on every single promise that he made during the campaign.

As to "another opportunity" -- don't hold your breath.


From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 01 December 2001 03:02 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Bob Rae made the first mistake right on his first day... he said, "I am the Premier of all Ontario." (And then went on to forget his constituency; the one that elected him.)
His fatal errors -- plural -- were his reneging on every single promise that he made during the campaign.
I`ve seen some very successful people who made the same mistakes. And a Liberal backbencher who refused to help a constituant who did not vote for him.

"reneging on every single promise" sounds to me like a bit of an exaggeration. What promises were you expecting immediate results on? Did he totally ignore the problem, started to make it the broke it, or did only a half a$$ job of implimenting it so that it was practically worthless from your standpoint.

I`m getting the idea that the NPI has theories where Rae went wrong and what he should have done differently. What is the NPI`s theory as to how Howard Pawley lost to Gary Filmon? My theory involves Hemlock.

The only aspect of this which might be confusing is that a street in Norwood St.Boniface was considered part of the St.Vital
riding.

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: vaudree ]


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 01 December 2001 04:02 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"reneging on every single promise" sounds to me like a bit of an exaggeration.

It's the precise truth.

From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 01 December 2001 05:16 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since you are applying such precision, perhaps a handful of examples wouldn't be too much of a problem?
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 01 December 2001 05:58 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WOT! You want me to play your Goggle?! (It's well documented... try your local library.)
From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 December 2001 06:28 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it's only fair that if you say that they have renegged on every single promise (in bold, no less!) then maybe the onus could be on you to support your statement with even a couple of examples...

I would actually be interested to know your point of view on this relogged - don't hold back!

PS - Doseq, I wasn't criticizing you for starting this thread at all - I was responding to Markbo when he said that he was the only one who truly respected Bob Rae (which he has since graciously corrected, Markbo). I have no objection to the revival of the issue in a new thread - that last one was ancient.

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 01 December 2001 06:34 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not only is it not well documented, it's not true.

I expect that kind of response from the type who gets all their opinions straight out of the Toronto Sun: "Harris has kept all his promises, it's well documented"

I didn't expect to find it here.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 01 December 2001 06:35 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, anything for a lady... (especially one who could very well be a P.M. in the making)...
Rae promised to eliminate all Food Banks.
Rae promised a public auto insurance scheme.
Rae promised a minimum tax on corporations.
He reneged on all three.
(There; three out two ain't bad.)

It's all documented.


From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 December 2001 06:43 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My God, did he really promise to eliminate all food banks? That's really something. Looks like Mike Harris is achieving that particular objective - since he came into power, the food banks have been so swamped they're literally left with empty shelves quite often. At least in my area.

I worked at my church as the secretary, and it was amazing how many people came knocking on the door asking for food or money or SOMETHING to help them out after Mike Harris's little 23% cut came through. It was heartbreaking because I had nothing to give them. I would direct them to the foodbank, and they would tell me they've been there once already that month, but the food is gone, and they can't go again because they have to ration it out. It was just terrible. And there I was, poor as anything with no money to give of my own. Turning people away was literally heartbreaking.

BTW, thanks for the info, relogged. I just a teenager when Rae came into power, so I didn't know what his election platforms were. The next P.M. huh? Ha! I don't think I could navigate all the backscratching and strategy you have to do to become even a leadership candidate, much less the P.M.

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 01 December 2001 07:01 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My God, did he really promise to eliminate all food banks? That's really something.
Actually, Peter Kauffman made that promise when he was defeated by Suzie Scizzor-hands (Thompson) and before running against Glen Murray for mayor. He would have kept it too - since he felt foodbanks were unfair competition with his chain of grocery stores.

Like I said - Rae promised too much too quickly. But you have to admire the dreamer in him.

Michelle - how old can can goods be before you won`t accept them anymore? My mom won`t donate anything over 8 years old, but we are debating whether can goods that are only 5 years old are too old or not.

I think she wants to keep the stuff for herself. A couple years back my dad was in the hospital for three weeks and my mom bragged that all she had to buy in groceries was milk, bread, and a pound of real butter because she wanted a treat. If she doesn`t give anything up - she might last a year doing the same thing since the freezer and food cupboard are full and she`s now the only coffee drinker. And my dad wasn`t doing very much grocery shopping the last year, compared to how he used to shop.

It goes without saying that my mom hates grocery shopping, but neither my mother or my eldest want me to go grocery shopping anymore because they freak out too easily.

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: vaudree ]


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 01 December 2001 07:02 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just so there is no misunderstanding:
Rae's promise to eliminate food banks meant that, under an NDP government there would be no need for food banks as every Ontarian will be well-looked after (through the proper social programs).
I was, at that time, a registered Liberal but still campaigned hard for the NDP because, like many other Liberals, I was p'd off with the arrogance of (Liberal Premier) David Petersen. (To our chagrin, we jumped from the proverbial frying pan into the fire.)

From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 December 2001 07:12 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I knew that, relogged. I was being facetious about my comment that Mike Harris was eliminating food banks... There is more of a need for food banks now than ever before.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 01 December 2001 08:49 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree, relogged. I thought the "Premier of all Ontario" thing was a platitude. The guy actually meant it!ARRRRRRRRRG!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not Machievellian by nature. But dammit, we got caught bringing a knife to a gunfight so many times, it's not funny.

And, no I doubt we'll ever get the chance to re-do things, but if we do, we better have someone behind the helmsmen that will be able to teach the Tories a thing or two about ruthlessness.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 December 2001 09:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The problem is, Tommy, I thought the whole idea of the civil service was that you can't go firing people based on their political stripe. I was skimming through On The Take (by Stevie Cameron) again a couple of weeks ago, and one of the big things that Mulroney did was a purge of government officials who would not do things in his crony-istic fashion.

I don't know if I like the idea of the NDP coming in and then doing a big partisan bloodletting among the higher ups in the civil service. I thought we on the left were supposed to think a little less - how should I put it - a little less viciously than that. That sounds so old-school politics, you know?

Then again, like you say, what are you going to do if your own bureaucrats are working against you at every turn?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
doseq
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1792

posted 02 December 2001 06:56 PM      Profile for doseq     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo,

I agree with you that jobs were safer under Rae than Harris. I personally felt that spreading out the neccessary cuts to prevent job losses was a good thing, even if it broke a collectively bargained agreement. And no, I don't think that OPSEU workers who lost their jobs were consoled by the fact that they held onto their original agreement. But I still think that collective bargaining is an important tool to ensure fair wages and good working conditions and as such should not be broken easily. In the case of extreme company (government) concerns most workers would probably willingly tear up contracts to ensure the survival of as many jobs as possible. (I am not a member of a union so this is just speculation)

In terms of the self interest question, I was responding particularily to the assertion that 'socialist refuse to accept self interest as human nature'. While I continue to agree that humans (individuals, companies, unions) often make decisions solely on self interest it doesn't follow that it is an unchangeable part of the human condition that unless accepted makes one's ideas invalid. I personally hope that many things considered human nature (greed, violence, self interest) can be overcome or collectively we're all in alot of trouble.


From: Quebec City | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 02 December 2001 10:05 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In the case of extreme company (government) concerns most workers would probably willingly tear up contracts to ensure the survival of as many jobs as possible. (I am not a member of a union so this is just speculation)

But he was the man that was supposed to change the world - he was their hero, their savior, and he let them down by being human. All the factions that supported the NDP thought every one else was expendable in a crisis EXCEPT THEM. He stood before them naked with all his flaws. The charismatic leader survives by creating an enemy and diverting public scrutiny away from the home frount. Rae thought the NDP was above that. Bush doesn`t.

From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 02 December 2001 11:11 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle,

I think there is little choice in the matter. The system of political patronage is so entrenched one can't just ignore it. You either have to have a wholesale change in the system that factors it out sytemically, or you have to play the game. And play it better than your opponents.

Firing someone for their political stripe? They should not have been hired for their political stripe in the first place.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
hamm1259
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1708

posted 03 December 2001 07:56 AM      Profile for hamm1259     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Minerva maybe it is because Saskatchewan, as a "have not" province gets tons of $ from the 3 "have" provinces-BC & Ontario. Funny how the left can do no wrong while those of us who are not to the left of Sven Robinson are merely the beneficiaries of "luck"
From: Portland, OR USA | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 December 2001 10:06 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, you have a really good point there, Tommy. When I read about the "criteria" that a lot of people were given jobs in the Immigration and Refugee Board in that book I was mentioning before, On The Take, it makes me ill. A $90,000 job for lovers of married MP's (among others) really pisses me off. Gives a whole new meaning to "bureaucrats in bed with the politicians".
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 December 2001 11:01 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
While I continue to agree that humans (individuals, companies, unions) often make decisions solely on self interest it doesn't follow that it is an unchangeable part of the human condition that unless accepted makes one's ideas invalid. I personally hope that many things considered human nature (greed, violence, self interest) can be overcome or collectively we're all in a lot of trouble.

Nice to meet you, doseq, and welcome to babble.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 03 December 2001 03:56 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its not that decisions are made solely on self interest. And its not that it has to be completely overcome.

The point is that it cannot be ignored as a contributing factor on how humans will behav. We have to make sure any system we have acknowledges self interest will continue to exist.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
doseq
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1792

posted 03 December 2001 04:19 PM      Profile for doseq     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo,

I think we have come to an agreement. I agree that self interest is present and must be accounted for but it is not the universal law it is sometimes made out to be.

skadl,

Nice to meet you too. Thanks for the welcome I look forward to many discussions in the future here on babble.


From: Quebec City | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 03 December 2001 04:38 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Firing someone for their political stripe? They should not have been hired for their political stripe in the first place.
I once tried to use my political stripe to try to get off a survey, but it didn`t work. If I was thinking and faked colorblindness I probably would have been taken off it since it was starting to give me nightmares. It was one where we phoned reform members to ask them their opinions on policy and the leaders. They knew who did not support their "major client" during provincial elections but figured for the most part that this lack of support helped keep the identity of their client secret.

Anyone who purposely sabatages work consitently has to go, but first you have to give them the benefit of a doubt. If you fire too many people from the previous admin then you have total chaos and shut down why you try to figure out how everything runs.

[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: vaudree ]


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca