Beam Me Up Scotty
Gerard Kennedy had a major speech at Ryerson today where he outlined the Enterprise theme he's been pushing this campaign. A lot of the specifics outlined were things he's already talked about but it's nice to see the many ideas Gerard has thrown out there all tie together. I could go into a long recap but Gavin Neil was there and he does a much better job of recapping the speech and the crux of the argument so go read his blog.
posted by calgarygrit at
1:01 a.m.
17 Comments:
Those are great Conservative endorsements at the bottom there, CG. I've always been a big fan of cross-party support and reaching out, that looks great on Kennedy in my book.
This does sound like a terrific package of ideas. Haven't been to Gavin's all week, will check it out immediately.
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 8:46 a.m.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Down & Out in L A, at 9:21 a.m.
My comments are at Gavins and Cherniaks, if they choose to post them, so I won't post here for now.
As someone actively involved in innovation and investment, Mr. Kennedy's speech is light on content and doesn't touch the real obstacles we face when getting new ideas off the ground.
By
Down & Out in L A, at 9:22 a.m.
I found his comments about allowing the bank mergers to happen very refreshing. As well, as opening up the telecom markets.
By
Bailey, at 10:33 a.m.
I don't trust Kennedy when it comes to anything to do with business, the reason is that he doesn't understand economics and the free market. I don't think he's ever worked in a private sector job, or knows first hand the complex problems that companies face. He's far too socialist.
Social programs and government spending will do nothing to increase the health of our business sector. What we need is less government, elimination of the corporate and dividend taxes, and fewer regulations.
For example, Kennedy says he wants more "angel investors," the way to do that is by cutting taxes so they can make more money. He wants more private sector R & D, you cut taxes so companies have more money to invest. If the money is there, the people will come.
Since (I think) he has never worked in the private sector before, or has any expierience in private sector top level management, I don't see how he could possibly understand these issues.
By
Unknown, at 11:53 a.m.
I would question the bank mergers and telecoms philosophy.
Would we have had all those innovative mortgage plans and the competition for customers if banks had merged 10 years ago?
Similarly, long distance rates.
In my mind competition is good and serves the consumer best.
I believe the opposite occurred in the airline industry for a while.
As competition diminished, prices for customers went up and service went down.
By
Down & Out in L A, at 12:51 p.m.
down & out; I have some questions on bank mergers as well...
Andrew; Kennedy ran the Toronto food bank for a decade. I believe they had something like a 30 million dollar a year budget and didn't get a cent of government aid. To me, that seems like pretty solid business experience - more so than any of the other top 4 to the best of my knowledge.
By
calgarygrit, at 1:05 p.m.
CG, you're right, better than the other top 4, but that's comparing him to people with no business expierence.
There is a big difference between running a non-profit organization with a 30-million dollar budget (peanuts in the corporate world) and a large corporation where they be hundreds of jobs that depend on the decisions you make and millions of your shareholders dollars at stake. This may sound mean, but when you're running a non-profit, you're not playing for keeps.
By
Unknown, at 1:59 p.m.
I don't trust Kennedy when it comes to anything to do with business, the reason is that he doesn't understand economics and the free market. I don't think he's ever worked in a private sector job, or knows first hand the complex problems that companies face. He's far too socialist.
How are you in any position to know what Kennedy does or does not understand? And anyway - Harper never held any private sector management positions, and being president of a right-wing lobby group doesn't count.
There is a big difference between running a non-profit organization with a 30-million dollar budget (peanuts in the corporate world) and a large corporation where they be hundreds of jobs that depend on the decisions you make and millions of your shareholders dollars at stake. This may sound mean, but when you're running a non-profit, you're not playing for keeps.
Indeed, but I see no reason why it has any bearing on suitability for government leadership. If running a big corporation was the best preparation for running a government, Martin would still be PM. In any case, Dion has ten years of cabinet experience, much of which was spent as President of the Privy Council. On the other hand, Rae knows a thing or two about making unpopular decisions and ran a province with thousands of employees. They didn't much like him, mind you.
By
JG, at 5:53 p.m.
True, but it's not like Harper had much business experience. And Paul Martin had tons of it and he didn't turn into a great PM because of it.
Belinda Stronach is probably your dream candidate is business experience is your criteria.
By
calgarygrit, at 3:04 a.m.
I am not sure that you could classify Belinda as typical of a business candidate.
Most have some academic credentials or have demonstrated their acumen by building a business into a successful enterprise. The conservatives Michael Wilson would be a more typical example from the Mulroney era.
Canada's economy increasingly depends on being competitive in the world markets. Any future leader needs to have a good understanding of what it takes to foster a positive climate for investment and a sustainable economy.
A candidate focussed exclusively on social goals would be a concern. Certainly, hiring quotas and affirmative action policies would send the wrong message.
The solution is in open consultation with business.
By
Down & Out in L A, at 4:47 a.m.
Jill:
Stephane Dion is not my first choice but I will always defend any individual who has a proven history of serving well and usually try to provide specific factual examples of past accomplishments.
I have defended other people in political life on this board when I have seen them act on issues and serve well.
Part of leadership selection is the candidate vetting process, so constructive questioning to improve understanding is fair game.
Character assasination merely promotes divisiveness . Dicussing what candidates actually say is more helpful.
In my mind, the leadership selection is a two stage process.
The leader we select now will have to withstand public scrutiny and a federal election.
Where we we be as a party if we refuse to consider other candidates when our preferred choices are unsuccessful.
We have some recent history of how well that works.
Sometimes I wonder if we will ever learn from that experience.
By
Down & Out in L A, at 5:03 a.m.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Down & Out in L A, at 11:48 a.m.
Well look who is trying to call the pot black !
I don't think I am biased at all. I'm willing to consider more than one or even two candidates.
That seems to contrast starkly with your position so who is biased?
I certainly have a ranking of preferred candidates and Mr. Kennedy is not my last preference, or my 2nd last nor is he near the bottom.
I try to evaluate candidates against my reality, which happens to be the prvate sector.
And hopefully in a positive way.
Negativism and unsubstantiated personal attacks have no place in a constructive process in selecting the leader of our party.
By
Down & Out in L A, at 11:48 a.m.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Down & Out in L A, at 11:50 a.m.
I have a hard time taking Andrew Smith seriously on this thread, to be honest. I don't have a particular choice among the candidates yet, and even I think you're running a smear job because you've got another candidate picked out. This whole race is getting so petty and childish - can it be over? Please?
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 12:32 a.m.
This can't have effect in actual fact, that's exactly what I believe.
By
www.webhablada.es, at 3:15 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home