No wonder Fry and Hall are dead last in the Liberal leadership race, they are inept charlatans who, by reason of elections, rose to their level of incompetance!

We do not have any women in Canadian politics, who have the right stuff, to be PM.

The NDP types are mainly one trick ponies. The Liberal types are just plain opportunists. Are there any neocan ladies in the Conservative party? Oh yes, home wrecker Stronich, now there is good credentials for PM. Sorry to say the Green party doesn't count.......yet.

Unfortunately there are still too many knuckle draggers out there. Ask a Stronach-hater out there why they dislike her and you will not get an answer. Too often, female politicians are disliked because of some "female" quality: some think Hilary Clinton is too shrill for example. Male policians seem to be disliked because one may disagree with a policy position. It's the ol' double standard and sorry grumpy but you kind of fall into that mould by saying Fry and Hall are "inept charlatans" but not providing any concrete reasons for your name calling.

They call her "Belinda" because that's the moniker she herself has actively cultivated. (I suppose it's cute and peronable.) That would be why her MP website is "www.belinda.ca" (check it out). And since that's the only real factoid in this story, you wonder why the writer didn't check it out. Maybe the real story should be why Belinda is part of the conspiracy against women?

Women have been getting the short end of the stick since the dawn of time. Why a women would ever vote for a man, if given the choice, is beyond me. If women want to see improvements in their lives, such as more equality and higher wages, they need to stop electing men to office.

I think its a national disgrace that Joe Volpe is even still in the "race". Makes me ashamed to be a man.

As for Ms Stronach, I don't recall too many politicians outside the Social Credit party who sleep with other people's spouses and who still think they could run for leader.

Oh, c'mon. Let's not use Hedy Fry being "at the bottom of the list" as evidence against women in general.

It's evidence against bad politicians in general, not women.

Hedy has a history of speaking before she thinks, and consequently looking not too...prime ministerial.

Hey! I can tell you exactly why Ms B.S. set my teeth on edge when she first strolled into Ottawa and decided she'd like to govern us from the highest position in the land. For something new to do, you understand. Not because she had zealously prepared for the job ... or even stayed in school to fill her head with facts. No sir, she came with a ready-built sense of supreme entitlement.

It's exactly the same reason that Iggy sets my teeth on edge.

Neither of them had prepared for the job ... didn't seem even to realize how big a job it is, nor how important ... they simply want the job, that's all.

Nothing to do with whether they zip their shorts at the front or at the side. Although it is, I admit, about outrageous cheek, if you'll pardon the unseemly pun.

I agree with you about "Iggy" Mary. If the Libs elect this guy it'll be a big mistake.

Two points:

First, politics is an unattractive job for anyone with a desire to take care of their own kids. Most women become mothers; most (but not all) mothers want to stay at home to some extent, quarterbacking the domestic file, so to speak.

A career in politics means time away, and fewer women than men are willing to take such a job.

Second, we are likely to see a shift in the next few decades. Girls are outperforming boys at all levels of schooling, and women now outnumber men in post-secondary institutions. We may well see this trend continue into the world of work.

lol, BC Mary..and I agree it has nothing to do with where politicians zip their shorts...waaaay more contributing factors than just gender alone.

Soooo BC Mary's allusion to zippers has reminded me of writer Erica Jong and what she once referred to as the zipless f**k. The zipless f**k, I think, is a great metaphor for what we are missing in politics today..and why the query behind this article should not be such a simplistic question of gender... but rather more about the integrity of the individual behind the gender.

According to Jong:

"The zipless f**k is absolutely pure. It is free of ulterior motives. There is no power game . The man is not "taking" and the woman is not "giving." No one is attempting to cuckold a husband or humiliate a wife . No one is trying to prove anything or get anything out of anyone. The zipless f**k is the purest thing there is. And it is rarer than the unicorn. And I have never had one."

Yeah, a pretty rare thing, and probably much too genuine and pure to expect out of the dirty sphere of politics..but wouldn't it be loverly if even just a few of our politicians at least attempted to politically aspire towards the zipless f**ck...can't think of a better way to make love to our country.

I'm ready. I'm ready to see some policy makers switch up the priorities and re-arrange the values of our sick society. I think there are men out there who would do this, too; we just keep voting in the same ol' clone. Given the chance I always vote for a woman (if there are decent ones to vote for), have always had a female doctor, will always say, in front of my ESL students, "Women and Men"- not "Men and Women", refer to doctors in general as "she", hand a jar I can't open (but I usually can) to my female friend, not the only guy in the room (who actually may be physically weaker).. these are small, very small things, but add them up over the course of a lifetime and it is no wonder women themselves put more faith in men to lead, to be the strong ones, to guide us... don't even get me started on this subject. Children are indoctrinated at a very young age- through language, the strutcture of language, the world they see around them, to believe that men must lead. Until the little things change, nothing else will.

I don't know the answer to this, but I'll throw it out anyway.

Sometimes when I see discussions of why so few women in political office, especially in top leadership, the speculation tends to focus on women, assigning attributes or flaws to men and women to reason why things are as they are.
And I wonder if it might be useful to focus on our systems. I wonder if there is something in our systems that makes them friendlier to men, with whatever cultural or natural attributes, than to women, with their cultural or natural attributes.

For example, are childcare and health primarily womens issue's, while industry/trade and defence are primarily mens'issues?

In our elections, is first-past-the-post friendlier to men than to women?

I don't know the answers, other than speculations, but, as I say, maybe it would be useful to look at our systems as to why lots of men, but few women are in the swim.

when the "old jock" John Turner gt the head job in Canada folks were sort of bemused as he didn't seem to be all that swift. His patting Iona Camponela ( Now Lt.Governor of BC, and does very well in the job)on the rear end on National TV, the look she gave him would have withered most folks. he of course didn't react. Iona C. puts in long days in her job and the folks around here figure not only should she have punched out Turner , but the wrong person ended up as. PM. Mind you we sure do pick some losers for PM. There have been lots of strong sharp women in politics, They start to fade when they try to be one of the boys. The German Chancellor didn't look too pleased when George Bush walked up behind her on International TV and decided to give her a neck rub. George like Turner is too dumb to know better.

I am ready to have the whole of North American and European politics and corporations turned over to women. Women couldn't possibly do a worse job than what is currently being done. I think there is a good chance we could see less war and more sharing.

Surely a subject that deserves more than this kind of rudimentary treatment.

Ditto Alcibiades. Angus Reid's article would be more appropriate on "News 1130" or ET Canada.

I think you pose an interesting question in regard to systems, macsasquatch but I hold a fairly controversial view in this regard in that I believe the real power of women has always resided outside of testosterone-based systems.

Women, like just about everything else in this world have largely been co-opted by those systems....instead of opting out of them.... where their real power lies.

The power of the outsider to the system holds the potential right now to change the world but I would say the propoganda and influence of advertising has defined women more than we would like to admit... and entrenched women inescapably further in the system...rather than delineating their true power away from it.

I think women have largely forfeited their power to become more like men. I don't think we really escape biology...there is a reason women foraged and men hunted. And that doesn't mean women should not participate... but rather that they should participate more fully and in a genuinely new way. That too many women want to hunt alongside men now in corporate highrises... or on the battlefields of imperialism has made materialism and the profits from endless war that our lust for more and more depends upon dangerously tip the balance against all that is life-sustaining and life-affirming.

Okay, I've been here before..will get ready to duck.

There are, and have been, a number of successful female politicians and government leaders around the world, and I encourage women to continue to try to break through the stereotyping here in Canada and the U.S. For example, I think Findlay has a great future, even though she won't win this round.

Not a total MCP, .......but I think a woman in the TOP leadership role in any given country may have to exact and exhibit far more UBER - maleness than males would normally require in the same position.

I recall Golda Meir, Maggie Thatcher, and Indira Gandhi, who were most certainly on the more conservative track and also not hesitant in military engagements either .

I agree with many TYEE bloggers on this topic...just because you(of either gender) want the job does not mean you are qualified for it, thus we the citizens are not reciprocally obligated to let you have it, but, in fact, perhaps we citizens should deny them, the candidates, the privelege they unfortunately interpet as their right and entitlement.

lynn said:

I think women have largely forfeited their power to become more like men. I don't think we really escape biology...there is a reason women foraged and men hunted. And that doesn't mean women should not participate... but rather that they should participate more fully and in a genuinely new way. That too many women want to hunt alongside men now in corporate highrises".

Hi lynn...!!

I not only agree but I am fully enthusiastic about what you wrote. Thanks so much for this.

I have always believed there is strength in a females approach, as there is strength in a males approach. When one gender trys to copy another, seldom is it done well, and the result is in the falling short of ones potential... But the two genders together...what a team.

Anyways, well said.

Peace lynn,

RTB

I agree with Lynn as well, but if women are never permitted to make a meaningful entrance into politics at all, how do they even stand a chance of injecting their strengths? It's very nice and well to say women have their own perspectives and approaches, but how does that help in the quest to have the public/other politicians listen, and more importantly, care?

Like it or not, we still have a "glass ceiling" stopping good females from rising above a certain level.
There are many ways to discourage a person from getting too invloved and the old boys network is expert at filtering out anyone who does not "belong" for whatever reason, man or woman!
The world has sen societies where females were running the show, and usually doing a very good job of it; the problem is to convince good people that being in politics need not be a "dirty job"!
In this country the NDP has lead the way by electing good strong female leaders, that the voters shy away is another story.

I agree shera and alive on the issue of accesibility for women into these fields of influence. We are not even close to what we need to be for a healthy, balanced society IMO...

I like what Neil said in his song "Looken' for a Leader"

We can hope... We need to balance out the testrostrone.

Peace,

RTB

ready?

been there, done that.

Margaret Thatcher.
Queen Elizabeth II.
Indira Ghandi.
Mandela.

'nuff said.

This article is treating our society as though it has no history, that it exists in some sort of temporal eternal 'now'.

It does not.

The reality of 'polyticks' just tends to push most women away from the career path. Does not mean that there are not female leaders in our society, just not in the cut-throat, theatrical world of 'many blood suckers'.

Maybe the question should be: "Are we ready for people from unpriveledged/low status backgrounds in politics?"

I think macsasquatch still comes closer to the real heart of the matter in the questioning of the present system itself and what it does to both women and men.

It's an illusion that real power resides within the political system right now. The real power is in the unseen and the hidden...the invisible powers behind Harper, Campbell et al. Harper, Campbell and crew are merely the front men, the waterboys..put there to facilitate the grand schemes of those invisible powers. If these pathetic minions ( Harper and Gordo) don't come through, if they don't facilitate what needs facilitating for the corporate grand pooh-bahs...they and the financial backing their power depends upon will soon disappear.

And since all systems eventually become corrupt...the problem is we will always need outsiders , both men and women, to combat the corruption of those invisible powers controlling our politics and our economies. But it seems too many are being co-opted into the corruption of the system instead of refusing to participate in the duplicity. Ask yourself... for the state of crisis the sovereignty of this country and this province is presently in, what politicians, men or women within the system, are forcefully speaking out against this loss of sovereignty...voicing the depth of the betrayal going on?

I see much reticence, spineless hesitation and carefulness of speech bordering on faint-hearted timidity.

Who needs more of this? Why would women want to join this corrupt club? ( But if they want to, I guess so be it). I just wouldn't be caught dead wearing their logo on my t-shirt. ;-)

Now this is all new ground here and everyone is just feeling their way so what I am trying to say is that power and where it resides is often not what it seems...and that playing the same old game... and asking women to play it in the same old way as well... will only give the same old results.

The present system is failing...the challenge is to confront it...take it on... to not become one with it and by doing so merely add to the rot.

cheers to RTB and shera.

Cool and spot on again lynn...!!

David Suzuki, in his book "Suzuki", said of leaders, role models, and sucess stories, the following:

Sage words eh lynn...?

Peace sister,

RTB

So what you're saying, Lynn, is that the whole facade of democracy as an institution is a phony construct that serves more to facilitate the continuation of a system which is managed for the reward and benefit of the same folks who've been pulling the levers forever. Is that right?

And that most of the women who've been party to that system - Belinda Stronach, Maggie Thatcher, Eva Peron, Angela Merkel, Martha Piper, etc. - are simple dumb cogs in the clockwork of this operation. But that, as you seem to be pointing out above, at bottom women 'do' have a different approach to things and choose to stay out of politics, in general, because they are more concerned with what is truly important to their families, friends and communities.

And that, of course - and here I expect we'd bring Coyote into the mix (and Ed Deak too I guess) - the real task is to somehow bring down the whole corrupt house of cards which constitutes the current program and replace it with something better, more local, and - inter-nation wise - truly cooperative rather than co-opting.

I'd like to see women who think that way collectively giving voice to such fundamental criticism as soon and as often as possible. And I think they'd find a great many men who agree with them.

The question, of course, given who holds the reigns of power now and how jealously they guard them, is how to proceed; is that fair?

Wish I had more time. Happy Thanksgiving – or as my kids all called it –Turkey day – to all.

Lynn, good points!
The question remains: can this rotten society be salvaged? and who will step up and do it?
Will we recognize a genuine attempt?

June Callwood is one woman who seems to exemplify the kind of leadership Lynn is talking about.

Callwood never wasted time vying for elected office. But she served the public interest to an astonishing degree, way above and beyond.

Very well put, Alcibiades...especially in regard to a truly co-operative approach versus co-option...and yes, Coyote and Ed Deak's views would definitely be highly valued here as they have for a long time now on these threads questioned the cruel inequality and corruption of our present economic system... as well as proposing economic systems that at least attempt to embody the ideas of co-operation and equality. They both say this mich better than I have simplistically stated here... so I will leave it up to them.

That is a very astute, interesting question, alive..it really all hinges on the word "genuine" doesn't it?... on the part of both those who attempt a new way...and on the part of those who are able to recognize it and genuinely want and value it...amongst so much of the "false promotion"..."the selling job" that is now politics...and life itself.

Have a turkey in need of stuffing and yams to be brown-sugared...but just wanted to say I thought my comment would be interpreted (as it often is) as against empowering women...so very pleasantly surprised that so many of you found common ground here...because it's really about empowering women in a more effective, natural and life-affirming way.

Cheers to you all on this thanksgiving week-end.

I agree, BC Mary. :-)

lynn:
"genuine" in this context, means trying to make the world a better place to live for EVERYBODY!
One may do a "Mother Theresa" and concentrate on one specific segment, while the rest of the world goes to hell in a handbasket?
Or one could enter politics, joining the party that seem closest to the ideal, and hope to "convert" the delegates to make it even better?
The fact is that even a Tommy Douglas learned that money and power will try their damnest to spoil your attempt.
What we need to realize is, that money and power groups work on the principle of divide and conquer!
Multinationals do not care about nations or national pride, and we cannot fight them because they simply move their business elsewhere should one govenrment try to regulate their scams.
The lesson is that we must have equal organization, meaning that countries around the world need to pass legislation with teeth that applies everywhere!
The organizations we do have with international commitments are all in the hands of the powergroups!
We do not even have one international political party!
Maybe women are able to see that we all are being played for suckers?
Maybe women can look beyond religion and cultural taboo's and work for the common good?
It is obvious that men do not have that capacity!

I don't know, alive, I think this has to be a joint effort between men and women. I just think "the power" for women is and largely should be in a different place from men's. My experience is that women can be equally as ruthless and manipulating as men. ( Certainly the history of royalty and its Queens... and of women political leaders have proved this so.) It's more about power and choosing a life-affirming power...rather than a corrupt path of self-destruction.

And as a mother of a son who seems, (admittedly even with my own bias) quite warm-hearted and wise... and hearing the voices of many men on these threads with the same strong qualities...it's obvious men aren't all the same, nor women for that matter. I think we need men... and men need us.

Amen to that, alive. :-)

tie domi would sure like her(stronach that is) to change a few divorce laws. As for women in politics. we have gotten this far without them. look how bad things are now. with women involved in politics, things can only get worse. the kitchen never looked like such a good place.

Moosebeer:

See? Shows ys that wimmin are natcheral-born communists!!!! Cripes, next thing ya know, they'd wanna start taking care of the poor, and start up daycares, and give some sort of priority to education, then maybe start taxing corporations.........

RickW said:

...Hey RickW, ...get your tongue out of your cheek... Too cute... ;-)

Peace R

RTBear

Thanks for that Lynn. It would be as wrong to blame the world's problems on men as it is to expect they'll all be solved by women. Nevertheless, better it should come from you than me.

I do worry that the exclusive local nature of much critical feminist social theory works against any effective cooperative approach between communities and nations.

Another real problem for activists and activism is an outgrowth of the fact that even when activist groups do organize and move collectively in a coordinated way the are ignored by the community at large because their actions get little or no attention in the media.

I had dinner last night with a Canadian academic who has been working at a college in the Bay area for several years. She described how more than 600,000 demonstrators came together twice in San Francisco twice to protest the US war in Iraq and got ‘no’ coverage in the local media there. They were virtually ignored. Compare that with the role of the media in bringing about the end of the war in Vietnam. Something has fundamentally changed and it’s not, in my view, the people and what they think.

Canada is no better. Just look at the way pee wee manipulates and co-opts the media.

I think that’s why, for example, we’ve seen activism move into more dicey areas like tree spiking and SUV torching and – in Paul Watson’s case – shadowing and screwing with whalers. Effective political activism requires a way of reaching out to and actually touching the people who need to get involved. Without better access to some means of quick and accurate information, nothing will ever change – and a place like Tyee just doesn’t cut it. Certainly not today, maybe never – the goals are far too limited and small minded.

Sorry for the errors in the above. Para 3 should be 'they' are ignored - not 'the' and in para 4 one 'twice' is redundant in sentence 2.

Do you really believe the real problem is a lack of media coverage of a 'critical mass' protest in a given locality?

Berkley has protests every week on every issue. The protests are performance art as much as they are popular self-expression. Push the big red button often and capriciously enough and even Pavlov's dog will stop salivating. The problem is that mass protests have become part of the storefront display. I learned that while watching the Vancouver anti-war protests. They were downtown fashion-statements made on good weather shopping days.

How do you make protest movements truly effective? Haven't activists become indistinguishable from lobbyists now, fed by the system they're engaged with?

I'm genuinely asking your opinion - not poo-pooing your comments. Is there no alternative to nastiness like the examples you cite?

"we have gotten this far without them. look how bad things are now. with women involved in politics, things can only get worse. the kitchen never looked like such a good place".

Don't kid yourself, Spanky- women have always wielded power in politics, even if from behind the scenes. The rest of your comments make no sense; rather, things can only get better- how on earth could they get worse??

It goes without saying that there needs to be co-operation between women AND men, between all people- but do we have that now?? NO! That is what this whole issue is about. The obvious imbalance in the political arena.

I honestly don't know nightbloom. I'm just reporting the observations of someone who's frustrated because - in this particular case these were demonstrations against the war in Iraq - of the apparent futility of making any real headway in the traditional way.

Certainly protests against the war in Vietnam got a lot more attention in the media in the late 60s early 70s than seems to be happening today. I’d say the collusion between power groups and the media is very troubling and extremely deep and wide-ranging.

My interlocutor says critical analysis of US policy is far more profound and widespread than anything that has been reflected in the local coverage in her area - and she says people are getting angry and beginning to turn to other ways of making their views known.

I'm not supporting that sort of activity - just saying it is probably a natural consequence of frustration and a sense that one can't make a point any other way.

I'd say the lobbyists are far more powerful, insidious and dangerous to the continued health of real democracy. Even in a little country like Canada there is no real prospect of getting a message 'out there' unless it has the backing of someone with a lot of power or the 'ear' of someone with a lot of power.

My sense is that women tend to focus on the local and the familial and avoid wider involvement in radical politics and change movements.

This is both good, and bad and I think the most effective way to engage the unique skills of women is for them to find ways to make 'local' connections with other women's groups in other parts of the world - on a personal level.

Alcibiades:

That was a while back. Try it now, with a press that has been "instructed" to diss Bush................

nightbloom:

You either break a bunch of stuff, or do a "Gandhi". The latter is more effective, 'cause it wears the bas*ards down. Question is, do we here in the west have what it takes to do this? Do we have the pateince or attention span?

That's a great observation, Rick W...I've never thought of it in that way... but perhaps our need for "instant gratification" in the west has more to do with it than we think.

I suspect that the woman most qualified for the political arena either don’t want the headaches, refuse to expose their families to the crap or are to busy making money and getting on with their lives. It is also a career that is very hard on family life, and that raises difficult choices for most woman. I suspect that the requirement for long hours required for the job acts as a glass ceiling for many woman.

Frankly if they can do a decent job, I don’t give a dam if they male/female/gay/white/black/brown/yellow/polka-dotted or blind

Um, didn't we already have a female Prime Minister by the name of Kim Campbell, albeit for like 4 months?

Though she led the Tories to the worst defeat in the history of modern democracy (by her own words if you've ever heard her speak - she's very witty and self-deprecating in person) - maybe we should think about how it is that Canadians didn't think it opportune to elect her considering she already had the friggin' job. . . given the backlash against Mulroney and the emergence of Reform in the West, t'would seem to have been an unwinnable battle regardless of who ran.

Whither the collective memories of the esteemed Tyee readers?

Why is that everyone who claims to be color/gender/sexual-orientation neutral uses this reductio ad absurdum-esque line to declare themselves immune to the natural biasses that we all have?

You know what Colin - there are no polka-dotted people - ain't no such racial demographic. Your use of this little trope reveals that in fact, yes, you do care.

Rick W
the most recent demonstration she talked about was only 3 months ago - not much had changed. The demonstrations of Mexicans and Latinos and their supporters against deportation of illegals got more attantion than the war protests did.

I hope you're right that things are changing - we'll see. I expect the administration to play the N Korea card for all it's worth,

Perhaps that is why she spoke as openly as she did.

I remember an interview with Rafe Mair when he asked about the MANY UNEMPLOYED and she responded the WILL ALWAYS BE MANY UNEMPLOYED.

It scares the rest of us into working.

I ruined a good silk tie that morning...some how the coffee cup missed my big mouth...but my female companion thought it very funny.Will not forget the day when i heard the truth come out of a politicians mouth.

JUST WISH I COULD HAVE SEEN IT AS WELL !

Kim Campbell told the truth too, remember? She said while on the campaign trail that there was going to be no short-term recovery from the recession, and the press & voting public hammered her for it. She was absolutely correct, and everyone knew it, of course.

Let's rehabilitate Kim Campbell - if Deng Xiaoping can come back from the Cultural Revolution, then surely so can Kim Phaedra Campbell, no?

incredulous wrote

Funnily enough, my wife was worried that our baby would look like a Jersey cow, due to our completely different skin colours.

I care about as much as saying: “oh that’s interesting” and then I will move on. I have worked with many different people and just don’t care to much what they look like, I want my leaders to be competent, do their best and be trustworthy. That is what is important.

And that's what is so depressing about the current bunch. They are incompetent, take all their orders from pee wee without ever thinking and I wouldn't trust them even as far as I trusted the Liberals - and that's not very far.

Guess you're aware of the latest group of allies we've chosen to sleep with relative to bottom-dragging fisheries. With guys like stockboy day, Gary Lund, Loyola Hearn & Rona Ambrose, to just mention 4 obvious candidates - could things get much worse?

What's important is that we get rid of these klutzes as quickly as possible. A bloc Quebecois government would do less harm to the country than these turkeys have done in less than 10 months.

Canada's ready if the right woman came forward at the right time. There's a reason why Hedy Fry trailed the pack. Not because she's a woman, but because she's not competent to be PM.

On the other hand, if Carole Taylor had decided to enter the race for Liberal leader, she'd certainly be one of the front runners with her media and government credentials.

Please spare us from such a fate!
It is not enough that a leader male or female is competent and has influence, What is needed is a leader who cares more about ordinary people more than about fancy shoes!

Actually it was the media that cared about her fancy shoes. As she said, they were a long-term investment, rather than this year's junk sold at Shoe Wearhouse.

Baloney, people don't make long term investments in Gucci shoes. They buy them and wear them to create an impression - alive is absolutely right, Carole Taylor has always cared more about herself than anything else and her 'performance' as Finance Minister is no exception.

Real people don't spend $600 on a pair of shoes...anyone who does, while there are millions of individuals who have 'no' shoes, is no moral beacon and no leader.

By the way, what are her 'government' credentials? Far as I know, until she ran in the provincal election she had never done anything but fill 'appointed' positions.

Gee, I've spent $300 on shoes. Does that make me half-real?

Taylor has been elected to Vanc. council as well as the leg.

Good, expensive shoes last a long time. They are actually a pretty reasonable investment IMO, like the $200 Gore-tex jacket I bought 20 years ago that still repels water.

Geez, G West, Taylor may be criticize-able for a lot of things, but her choice in footwear????

http://newyorkmetro.com/fashion/06/spring/15738/

What one woman's wardrobe might fetch and proof that some clothes might well be considered an investment.

Stump.

These are Guccis. Check em out - they are not sensible footwear. I stand by the criticism. If she wants to buy a $400 pair of logging boots and start working in the woods there's a Viberg store in Victoria where she can get a lovely pair.

She's as phony as a 3 dollar bill. I remember seeing her and Art at the PNE a few years back; just milling in the crowd she was performing - every word carefully chosen for maximum effect on the hoi poloi! Sick-making.

When exactly was Taylor elected to Vancouver Council?

Sorry G, but if Taylor wants to spend her money on handmade Italian shoes, that's her business. Better that than the sweatshop Nike's that aren't much cheaper.

Funny we don't care what kind of shoes Gorgon Campbell wears.

I see a sexist double standard at work.

If you want to find out when she was on Vanc. Council, do your own googling, I ain't yr research b*tch bro! ;-)

yeh, I knew that mentioning her Guccis would get a reaction, too bad you all missed the point!
We need leaders (either sex) who CARES about people!
Instead of (you name the vanity item)

Stump,
I could care less what Campbell wears. The point is the press made a big deal about Taylor's Guccis and some one here essayed the opinion about them being an investment.

I suggested that was crap and I stand by that point. As to Taylor's service on Vancouver council as evidence of her qualifications, I use climber's old adage and call BS on you. You're the fella who made the point - if you think it was significant you ought to know what you're talking about - clearly you don't.

Carole Taylor cares about Carole Taylor - that's what she's done from day one when she left CTV in TO to begin her affair with the married mayor of Vancouver. Does that count as qualifications for Finance Minister too?

Speaking of the Finance Minister, did anyone here her interviewed (and questioned by a listener or two) on CBC Radio (Almanac) at noon Friday?

Very interesting how she avoided answering a good question from a listener about why the BCLiberals are putting 'any' money (let alone a bigger percentage increase in this budget) into private schools while they can't seem to afford to pay enough for the 'public' schools for which they have the legislative responsibility: Such that a Victoria trustee John Young had to go to court over additional fees for students in the public system. Not a penny of public money should go to private schools and Taylor knows it. She pretends that money spent thereon is not a negative for schools in the public system and smiles sweetly all the while. If anything, she’s worse than Farrell-Collins.

The woman is a dissembler extraordinaire. I wouldn't trust her with a plugged nickel - she's nothing but a Gucci-clad prestidigitator.

If the only sort of woman who can succeed in politics is a Carole Taylor type then we're better off without them.

First sentence should be 'hear' not here, mea culpa

I imagine the Gucci's were paid for with tax dollars out of the public coffer. It is part of the Finance Minister's official expenditures. Just hazarding a guess, but I theorize that this would be an expense in addition to any clothing allowance that our ministers may have granted to themselves. I'll see if i can find anything on this - just for curiosity-sake.

G West:

You said:

I simply pointed out the error in your assumption. I didn't suggest it made her qualified to do anything. I'd be careful about accusing people of not knowing what they're talking about... when you point a finger there's three more pointing back at you my friend.

As to shoes as an investment, my link a little up-thread demonstrated that clothing and shoes can and are considered an investment once you reach a certain level of quality and brand-recognition. You might not like it. You might not agree with it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Sharing:

The Guccis are something Ms. Taylor has owned for quite a few years. They weren't bought while in her current position.

What a tempest in a toe-holder! :-)

The Guccis are something Ms. Taylor has owned for quite a few years. They weren't bought while in her current position.

Yeah,they were still bought by our money and she continues at the public trough.

She ran the CBC for us for quite a while and got paid DAMN GOOD MONEY.

Once a parasite...always a parasite.look up her job history and see where she did anything but sit around and BULLSH!T the public.

Pretty people get paid way more than uglies ask my brother Thomas the Photographer why he only takes pictures of pretty people .

THEY CAN SELL YOU ANYTHING !

And that is the name of the game...to sell you whatever they can dream up to put money and power in their hands.

Well Stump,
I don;t know how you get to learn about Ms. Taylor's Gucci's being used. I was living under the assumption created by the Liberal-friendly media that the Minister sported a new pair of shoes for the occasion.

If they were her's, purchased with her own money then there is nothing more I have to say than thanks for the clarification.

I am more concerned about her (and her cronies - be they male or female) giving away the health care system (and other publically owned assets) to private entities.

Sharing:

I think I've made an error. Going from memory, I thought her shoes were twenty years old. That's not right. The story cut and pasted below may demonstrate how I made that incorrect assumption.

(Wish my memory was as good as it was when I was twenty years old!)
-----------------
B.C. finance minister faces questions over $600 Gucci shoes bought for budget

Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Article tools

Printer friendly

E-mail

Font:
VICTORIA (CP) - Despite the stylish shoes, Carole Taylor portrayed herself as a cost conscious shopper in presenting her first full budget Tuesday as B.C.'s finance minister.
"I believe strongly in infrastructure investment," joked Taylor, former chairwoman of the CBC who was first elected to the legislature last May. "My shoes are amortized over 20 years."
She recently bought the cream coloured, gold-buckled Guccis at Holt Renfrew, carrying on the tradition of finance ministers who wear new shoes to deliver their budgets.
Asked about the shoes, estimated to cost $600 at her news conference, Taylor noted that she wore a 15-year old pair of refurbished kicks when she delivered the budget update in September.
Her predecessor, Colin Hansen, wore a pair of sneakers to present last year's budget as a symbol of the province's momentum.
Taylor, in a long string of pearls and stylish black glasses, defended her wardrobe after she was asked about wearing shoes that few British Columbians could afford.
"The jacket I'm wearing is from the time when the mini was popular," she shot back.

Stump:
This is what YOU said -

Remember?
I still don't think she has any elected experience - you're the one that claimed she did.

If she did, in my view, the onus is on you to produce the evidence. In other words, put up or shut up!

There are two prominent Carole's in this province!
That Taylor chick get far too much exposure!
Her record so far is the ability to parrot the official line and getting media time because she is a "known" personality.
The intent of this tread was to figure out how to get more good female politicians; Taylor is very much a member of the old boys club, being a female is a side issue there!
What we need are females who are prepared to take up the fight, even if it is not served to them on a silver platter!
The other Carole at least knows she has a fight ahead of her, and is doing her best!
If her best is enough is a good question? Seem the NDP often elect females because they are females and that is not a good thing!
From what i have seen Adrian Dix would make a more convincing leader of the provincial NDP; or for that matter Corky Ewans?

Did anyone see this profile of Elizabeth May in yesterday's NYTimes (in two sections):

October 14, 2006
The Saturday Profile
An Accidental Canadian Finds Her Environmental Footing
By IAN AUSTEN

OTTAWA

ONE afternoon 33 years ago, Elizabeth May was picked up outside her dorm at Smith College for what she thought was a weeklong study break. She never returned.

Once in her parents’ car, Ms. May learned that the family’s home, a farm outside Hartford, Conn., was up for sale. Her father had quit his job as an insurance executive and all of them, including her younger brother, were headed to a new life in Cape Breton, the picturesque but economically deprived island in Nova Scotia.

For Ms. May, her parents’ impulsive move soon meant trading a life of relative affluence for periods of near poverty. Undergraduate life at Smith was exchanged for years of waiting tables and cooking in a restaurant. And instead of her parents’ circle of politically active friends, including George McGovern and a young Bill Clinton, there were villagers who were suspicious of, and sometimes unfriendly toward, all who were, as they put it, “from away.”

That situation, however, gave Ms. May a perspective that was critical in her development into one of Canada’s most prominent environmentalists. After founding the Sierra Club of Canada and running it for almost 17 years, Ms. May has emerged as the leader of the Green Party of Canada, an also-ran in Canadian politics but a group with a platform nonetheless.

Under Canadian election law, the 5 percent of votes the party won in the past two national elections entitles it to about 1 million Canadian dollars a year, or about $800,000, in government campaign financing. And in Ms. May, the party — which has yet to send a single member to Parliament — has its first leader who is a well-known figure.

Ms. May’s switch from environmentalism to politics was prompted, she says, by the election of a minority Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper in January. “I was going through a nail-biting, wrist-slashing phase of my life known as watching Harper get to victory,” she said.

Perhaps the most surprising factor in Ms. May’s ascent is that she has overcome misgivings about her American upbringing, though she did become a Canadian citizen. Many Canadians, particularly voters on the left, are mistrustful of politicians who have simply lived in the United States, not to speak of being born there.

Yet, the chaos that Cape Breton brought to her life has helped her bridge many of the subtle, if significant, gaps between Canadians and Americans. “I’m lucky that I didn’t go to Toronto, where I then immediately joined an environmental group,” she said. “I wouldn’t have developed that strong sense you need to find the differences in a culture that aren’t immediately apparent.”

Canadians, Ms. May said, are more cautious and deferential to authority than are Americans. And brash appeals simply do not work here.

“In the United States, I can say: ‘I’ve got a check here, who’s going to match it,’ ” Ms. May said of her money-raising efforts. “If you do that in Canada, it’s a terrible social faux pas. People look at their shoes.”

Ms. May’s introduction to fund-raising and campaigning came early. Her mother, Stephanie May, was a founder of the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, and that took Elizabeth to Washington for a news conference when she was still a toddler.

“My mother represented motherhood, I represented the contaminated innocent,” Ms. May said. “I sat on Hubert Humphrey’s lap for a good chunk of the press conference.”

Stephanie May’s political work expanded to include fund-raising for several Democratic campaigns, including the presidential bids of Eugene McCarthy and Mr. McGovern. Mr. Clinton, Mr. McGovern’s Connecticut organizer, became a regular houseguest and remains a family friend.

THOSE campaign efforts ultimately produced disappointment, culminating in the re-election of Richard Nixon in 1972. That and the general disruption of the era gradually soured the Mays on the United States. In the fall of 1973, they decided to abandon the country for a 100-acre farm with two dilapidated houses that Stephanie May had purchased on a whim while vacationing in Cape Breton the previous summer.

To support the family, or so they thought, they bought a long-closed restaurant along the Cabot Trail, Cape Breton’s scenic highway, that was housed in a permanently moored sailing schooner built in 1918. Attached was a gift shop.

Within a year, the money-gobbling Schooner Village transformed the family into what Ms. May called “nouveau pauvre,” as they slept in the gift shop’s storeroom over the winter because they could not afford to heat their house as well. Instead of finishing her college degree, Ms. May took correspondence courses in restaurant and kitchen management.

When not cooking, waiting tables or begging neighbors for vegetables that missed a supplier’s weekly shipment, Ms. May found time for environmental work. Gradually she become noticed, not just in Cape Breton but nationally, for organizing a campaign against aerial spraying by the pulp and paper industry, which spread a toxic cloud over the entire island.

It was a difficult crusade. The closing of coal mines and the decline of fishing had brought unofficial unemployment levels in Cape Breton to over 30 percent. For many people, work meant cutting spruce trees or leaving the island. But the province eventually banned all aerial spraying of insecticides.

With credit for her work experience, Ms. May was admitted to law school in Halifax without even an undergraduate degree, and won scholarships that paid her living expenses and tuition.

After practicing advocacy law for a while, she accepted a post in 1986 as special adviser to the environment minister in the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney.

But that ended two years later, when the government allowed a province to build two dams in Saskatchewan without an environmental assessment, and Ms. May quit in protest. A court later found that the government had acted improperly, though the dams were ultimately built.

IN 1989, she started the Sierra Club of Canada and, as in Cape Breton, took on unpopular causes — in particular, Alberta’s oil sands or, as she prefers, “tar sands.” While they are a source of wealth for Western Canada and oil for the United States, they require tremendous quantities of natural gas in the extraction process — a huge contribution to the greenhouse gases that are widely believed to be contributing to global warming.

“So we’ve got a huge amount of energy being consumed in order to produce the oil, which we then sell to the United States for cars that don’t have proper energy efficiency standards,” she said. “This is an appalling megaproject.”

While calling for a moratorium on new oil-sands developments, she is also focusing on ending subsidies to the industry. “Fix the tax system, stop subsidizing the most profitable companies in the world to produce the world’s most profitable product,” she said. “Should be simple.”

On a recent afternoon, Ms. May was wearing a green and yellow Green Party pin (which actually bears a resemblance to the logo of the oil giant BP) as well as the tiny white, enameled medallion of an officer of the Order of Canada, one of the country’s top civilian honors.

“Canada’s a wonderful country,” she said. “If you beat up on the government for 30 years, you can still get the Order of Canada.”

Is it possible that Ms May might become one the first of a new 'type' of woman in politics? She certainly isn't getting much notice from the press - however, a mention in the Times will usually help to fix that.

Thanks for finding and posting this article on Ms. May, G. West. I learned something of value from your timely thoughtfulness.

May doesn't get my vote. She voted for Mulroney as the most environmental of prime ministers just recently.

If she does not have the insight to see how Mulroney co-opted the environmental movement in many ways..and if she does not see that much of our present environmental damage was caused by the economic policies of Mulroney, the Free Trade Deal, Mulroney's love of all things american etc....that the tar sands project itself is the result of the americanization of Canada..that the policies of the Mulroney governement contributed greatly to the americanization of Canada, indeed paved the way for the present treachery embodied in the NAU...then I think the above is just a pleasant sounding resume and not much else.

This is the problem of co-option...it conveniently blurs things....Mulroney's economic policies are not and cannot be separated from his environmental policies. Ms. May, in her choice of him as Eco-PM reveals she is not even able to make that very simplistic distinction. She definitely is green...but not in the environmental meaning of the word.

yes lynn;
Elizabeth May showed her colours, and we better not forget that!

Lynn,
That whole eco-PM thing was pretty off putting and she worked for Mulroney for years too. I must say that I thought she came across very well on Avi Lewis's round table on Global Warming three weeks or so ago on the CBC. Much better, for example, than Glenn Whazzizname who used to be mayor of Winnipeg and was chairing some kind of thinktank on the subject who also spoke during the show.

Anyone else see it?

Murray, just remembered.

G West:

You forgot option three. Walk away shaking your head at some people's inability to admit an error.

I didn't make an error Stump. I asked you to clarify information you said you had - that's all.

I've been shaking my head ever since you made that original post. What the hell were you thinking?

Stump:
Here's her CV. She did serve on city council for 4 years - if that makes you feel any better. If you look at the rest of her 'qualifications' I think that's still pretty thin gruel for her present position and I'll stand by my assessment of her.

Carole Taylor:

Recipient of the Order of Canada and with Honourary Doctorates from Simon Fraser University, British Columbia Institute of Technology and B.C. Open University, Carole Taylor has been the Chair of:

* The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
* The Canada Ports Corporation
* The Vancouver Port Corporation
* The Vancouver Public Library
* The Vancouver Board of Trade

Carole Taylor has served on the Board of Directors of:

* BCIT
* the B.C. Children’s Hospital
* Canadian Pacific Ltd
* Fairmont Hotels and Resorts
* HSBC Holdings
* Ontario Place
* Rogers Cable
* the Vancouver Art Gallery

Carole Taylor has contributed to the community and fundraising activities of many social service and cultural organizations including:

* The United Way
* S.U.C.C.E.S.S.
* Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House
* The Heart Foundation

Vancouver City Councilor 1986-1990

* Chair, Neighbourhood, Cultural and Community Services
* Chair, Greater Vancouver Hospital District
* Chair, Mayor’s Task Force on Children
* Director, Greater Vancouver Regional District

DO you see any university 'education' there? Any professional accounting or auditing designation? Any indication that she's ever been anything but an ornament on a rich man's arm?

I don't?

good post G west:
That woman has managed to become a member of the old boys club, and like all the other good old boys been handed positions where qualifications are the last requirement.
We need female leaders who will fight their way in, rather than getting it handed to them on a silver platter!

Amen, alive.

I think if we were criticizing someone you supported G. West you'd be telling us how life experience is more important than education or some-such.

You're certainly welcome to 'stand by your assessment' but if you'd dug a little deeper you'd see she does have some univ. education (a B.A.). Now you're oh-for-three.

First error - Taylor has no elected experience except provincially.

Second error - Expensive shoes can't be considered an investment

Third error - no university eduation.

You're throwing around all these assumptions and most of them are wrong. Aren't you just a little bit embarassed?

buh-bye

Stump:
Why doesn't she list her university education on her CV then? Is she ashamed of having attended university?

I don't think Guccis are ever an investment in anything except trying to make an impression.

All I ever asked you to do was clarify a point you made and that I wasn't sure of...and which I finally did above - no problem for me.

I could care less about having made a mistake. If you go back to your own posts, you'll find this:

- which you wrote, and which is, in my opinion, the only thing anyone on this thread has to be embarrassed about. Not my idea of a friendly way to start a conversation, bub!

The fact she served on an NPA council while married to a former NPA mayor doesn't seem to me to be the kind of experience I'd expect her to bring to the job of top finance official for the province. Or from the school of hard knocks for that matter. You have to have some to qualify for that 'degree'.

As for someone having learned something from life experience?

Give me a break and look at that CV again.

What life experience? Discussing how to attract wealthy donors to the latest Shaunnessy shindig.

You're the one who ought to be embarrassed, Stump.

The only people who call buying Gucci or Manolo Blahnik shoes an investment are people like Imelda Marcos, Gloria Vanderbilt and Mrs. Conrad Black. If you think your hero Carole Taylor belongs in that august company, so be it.

Why would I dig any deeper into the qualifications of a woman who doesn't even keep her word about the signing bonus for provincial civil servants? She’s not worth my time.

About the essence of the woman - who may well end up being the Premier of this province if people don't wake up before the next election - I think I, and others on this thread have her dead to rights.

You've confused my correction of your inaccurate assumptions as support for Ms. Taylor.

You missed the little smiley/winky face that should have let you know I was just having a little fun re: the Google comment.

I didn't say her life experience made her qualified either. Simply put forth a theory.

You're right, I am embarassed... to be debating someone with an attitude of:

"I could care less about having made a mistake."

Try caring. You won't make faulty assumptions so much.

And just to stir you up some more, it's "couldn't care less" I believe, in the context you are trying to put across.

Stump
You posted that you thought buying Guccis was an investment! If there was a place for a smiley-face, that’s where it should have been placed.

You may well think putting a semi-colon, a dash and a close parenthesis lets you off the hook for your other 'personal' remark but I don't.

In the context of the 'mistake' you're talking about my having made, which I freely admitted above, why would I 'care' what you've got to say.

These remarks are between us and in that context - I could care less. If you want to come across as a clown, so be it. I don't.

On March 30, on the CBC afternoon show in Victoria, Carole Taylor stated that all provincial employees, both union members and exclusions, members of professional associations included - other than order-in-council appointees, would receive the signing bonus.

They didn't.

That's the kind of ‘mistake’ I care about from a Finance minister and the sort of context I care about.

From most of your posts I'd have thought the same thing would be true of you. Obviously, it isn't. Smiley faces notwithstanding. I do ‘care’; but I’m beginning to wonder about you.

Y'know Stump, it's always a good idea to push back for a minute before one posts - I should have done that before I put in that last remark. I went too far, for that I am sorry. Everyone makes mistakes, caring about them is less important than admitting it and moving on. The only people who don't screw things up from time to time are people who are afraid to pick up a screwdriver - I apologize.

In the end I expect we share a lot more in common than we disagree about ... Carole Taylor notwithstanding.

Cheers.