Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
Not all necessarily incompetent, but definitely not the best choices and very likely under-qualified for the roles they were put in. There were others that had more experience that were not appointed.
Gary Goodyear - Fundamentalist creationist, climate change denier and chiropractor - Minister of state and science
Ed Holder - Insurance broker with philosophy degree - Minister of state and science
Rona Ambrose - Poli-Sci major - Minister of environment, minister of health
Leona Aglukkaq - Never made any post secondary education public and refused to do so - Minister of health, minister of environment
Greg Rickford - Nurse/Lawyer - Minister of natural resources
Peter Mckay - Lawyer - Minister of defense
Vs. some of the appointments now...
Minister of transport - astronaut, minister of science - Nobel prize winner and scientist, minister of health - gasp, an actual doctor, minister of defense - decorated soldier, minister of social development - poverty economist
I'm thinking this is a wee bit more aligned to what is actually needed for the role rather than just patronage for loyalty no? Aside from the whole forced gender equality bits.
|
I don't know. Sounds a lot more like petty retrospective analysis by a sore winner than anything else. (Not you personally rather the original source of the critique)
It ignores all other factors which go into play, such as
Gender balance
Representatives from each large municipality
Bilingualism
Communication and leadership intangibles
diversity of opinion from prior ministers
Amongst others
This isn't to say that people on that list are not ripe for critique, rather it is to say there are more effective and less petty ways to critique - such as performance rather than personal attack
Personally I was very disappointed by Ambrose and thought Edmonton needed a much more effective advocate. However she clearly has the support of her peers by being elected as interim leader.