There are many things May seems to dislike about Canada and she has a catastrophic view of our future if we don't do what she recommends. The free market is seen as a disaster writ large; she holds strongly the views of ... economist Thomas Pilketty, who recommends massive income redistribution. Her list is long: we are a petro state and are threatened by oil, pipelines, frakking, fish farming, carbon, the “tar” sands, industrial farming, meat eating, population growth, biodiversity collapse, the stock market, banks, ozone, development, and especially, the rich. ...
... Seductive as she may seem, Elizabeth May’s Canadian dream is a luxury we cannot afford. [Actually, May's "dream" would lead to the opposite of "luxury" as in poverty for all.]
Monday, November 24, 2014
Time to audit Elizabeth May
Elizabeth Nickson:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Unless you are going to audit all politicians why should she be singled out. I don't like her views but in a democracy she has every right to them and there is a sizeable minority of Canadians who do agree with those so why shouldn't they have a party to vote for. I would only audit any politician if there is evidence they broke the rules, not because you don't like their views.
You completely misconstrue Nickson's use of the term of "audit". Her article is her audit of May's views and agenda.
No one is denying May her right to express her wrong-headed views or denying the right of anyone else to support those views. She has a seat in Parliament, hasn't she? It is ridiculous to suggest that those views should not be subject to audit and criticism, by anyone, any time.
If just a fraction of May's policies were implemented, it would place an impossible burden on taxpayers and ordinary Canadians meant to benefit; the "stupid" Canadians as she has been known to refer to.
Cassandras like May never intend to be part of the little people who would suffer, by having 600 ft wind turbines built next to their house, or enduring energy poverty through a crippling winter.
She fully intends to remain on a public sector income as an MP or if ever Liberals get elected as a permanent Senator. See how quickly she would chuck her Green Party given such an opportunity.
My bad, I thought when you said audit, you meant audit like CRA type. Considering her party got less than 5% and is doing poorly in the polls I would ignore them, but rather focus on the NDP and Liberals and if they adopt any of her more radical policies, go after them. The NDP is strong in heavily manufacturing areas like Hamilton and Windsor and also northern ridings, which are all areas such policies wouldn't go over well. The most solidly Liberal part of Canada is Atlantic Canada which very rural and thus probably wouldn't either support her policies so if either a dumb enough to support them, then go after then. The BQ and Greens are irrelevant so who cares what they think. It's the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP who are the only parties that matter.
Anon - I have long held the position that MPs, their staff, and civil servants be held to the same rules as small businesses with respect to their expense claims. Further, I would ask CRA to send the least-experienced and most aggressive auditors to Parliament Hill for this task. This would accomplish two things: expense accounts (all of which are on our dime) would be considerably reduced, and small businesses being audited would face competent auditors.
Sure great to read Liz Nickson again.
Post a Comment