But all that said, I am not sure Harper did anything wrong here. Or perhaps better put, I am not at all sure any government would have acted any differently.
To walk away from GM would be to take a huge gamble and to condemn Oshawa, for example, to utter ruin. Perhaps in the long run that makes sense because GM is toast anyway but it's not a gamble I'd be glad to take.
Put otherwise, if a Liberal federal government did the same thing I would not have been surprised (or upset).
So my attack is muted.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
7 comments:
I have a lot of trouble with this bailout as well, even though I have a relative who works for GM in Oshawa.
Why not make that your blog poll question - ask if people support the bailout?
Certainly the National Post numbers are grossly over-stated. As Stephen Harper points out - there are many, many more jobs that are at stake outside of GMC - but that being said, the plan is seriously flawed - particularly for a "Conservative".
As discussed on CBC radio yesterday, Professor Joseph D'Cruz, Professor of Strategic Management with the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, opined that we should allow market forces to fill in the void - as in the long run, other manufacturers will fill the void - and the lost jobs would eventually be re-filled. Just more slowly.
It's a little like evolution. (Yes, this Conservative is a "believer"). Killing of the weaker member of the herd ultimately makes the herd stronger.
Letting GMC go will, in the long run, strengthen the industry.
As also pointed out by D'Cruz, why are lost jobs in the auto industry so much more important that lost jobs in the B.C. lumber industry.
Morton, are you all there?
You say that the deal is bad and that an election could be called.
Then in your next breathe you say Harper didn't do anything wrong.
I understand you're a lawyer, but come on.
The irony of this story is, I think that Conservatives will loose votes over this from their base and from the left because either they didn't do enough or because they made it an excuse for a genuine attack on the unions. So the Cons lose either way.
James - do you think that you should be posing as an impartial non partisan "expert" on the Victims of Terror bill?
CBC calling you a "Law Professor" while you trash a conservative bill is more than a little bit of shysterism by both parties don't you think?
More apropos would be James Morton, Liberal Blogger-Liberal Commentator.
It is just sleazy to label you as anything else when commenting on federal politics don't you think?
If the money is a pure grant to the company then it would be an unwise use of funds. Hoiwever, as an investment, which may, if managed wisely, be recouped, it's a different story - so much so that it is somewhat misleading to say that the government 'spent' $1.4 per job saved.
Post a Comment