Gerard Kennedy, as Minister of Education, tried to link dropping out of school with a driving license. I don't know if this was his idea or not, but he certainly defended it.
Eleven months later, the Ontario Government has admitted it was a bad idea.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that piece of legislation was one of the few that came out of Kennedy's office. The only other thing Kennedy did in his 2 and a half years in office was put his nose where it didn't belong in negotiations between school boards and unions.
-Sixth Place in Quebec University Dropout Gerard Kennedy Losing at PR
8 comments:
Putting his nose where it didn't belong got a long term contract between the Union and the Boards, on universal terms across the province.
After all, only Nixon could go to China.
Large administrative departments like Education and Health produce scant legislation in our system. If the legislative framework is already in place to administer the department at the ministerial level, or via orders in council, why would you need to legislate more.
And so the program didn't work, it required almost no money to administer, and was the subject of praise from the press at the time. It was a worthy experiment.
"It was a worthy experiment."
Um, no. the driving license thing was part of proposed legislation that has now been modified.
Health and Education are not "Large administrations"! They have large budgets, but they are administered locally by school boards and hospitals.
Saying that education is run by local boards is hog-wash. Who sets the standards, ciriculum, and budgets?
Thats right, the provincial department of education. Getting the local boards to go along isn't easy either, it is much like dealing with provinces as the federal government.
"it is much like dealing with provinces as the federal government."
EXACTLY. That is why Kennedy finished 6th in Quebec. He can't keep his hands off other levels of government. His "third way" that he proposes to deal with provinces and his proposed national education standards are a no go.
You have to ask, does the liberal party have growth potential in Quebec, beyond a return to 15-20 seats retained in 2004?
Problably not. So where should we design our policies to appeal to? How about urban and suburban Ontario, and BC where we have growth potential.
I think you have interpreted pro-ROC as being anti-Quebec. If you believe that, then your just another irrational sovereignist.
How is writing off Quebec not anti-Quebec? If and when Quebec separates, you could consider Gerard Kennedy. Until that happens, we have to chose a Liberal leader who can get Liberals elected coast to coast to coast.
Martin had the almost total support from Quebec in the last leadership contest, and look at how that turned out hmm?
The chosen 3700 whom voted in Quebec at the DEMs represent a hollowed out liberal party, the people whom led the Quebec wing to a electoral defeat. The Quebec wing cannot even successfully manage its own financial books, leading the central party to pay off its debt, to try to get it on an even keel again. I wouldn't trust these people to run a Pizza Hut successfully let alone an election.
And we should be listening to them on electoral strategy, when 20 more seats in Ontario would have us forming the government instead of the conservatives?
Especially when the policy chosen to 'appeal' to Quebecers will alienate us from our traditional power base in Ontario? (thats if it even works)
If that seems like a recipie for electoral success to you I have some kool-aid I want you to drink.
Ignatieff won Ontario, Quebec and Alberta. Its not an either or equation.
Only Kennedy managed to alienate: sixth place in Quebec
Post a Comment