“I have three children & a husband who is prime minister. I need help.”
May 16, 2016 10:54 AM Subscribe
Criticism leveled at Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, wife of prime minister Justin Trudeau, dismissed as ‘sexist and spiteful’ after she says she needs more staff. [The Guardian] The wife of Canada’s prime minister has sparked a fierce national debate after saying she needs more help to expand her official role and take on more public duties. Sophie Grégoire Trudeau last week told a French-language newspaper that she wanted to do more, but struggled with just one staff member.
Related:
- Sophie Trudeau Has Challenged the Fairytale That Women Can Do It All. by Suzanne Moore [The Guardian]
Related:
- Sophie Trudeau Has Challenged the Fairytale That Women Can Do It All. by Suzanne Moore [The Guardian]
But Grégoire Trudeau has broken the golden rule not just for political spouses but for all women in public life. She has admitted that she is struggling to carry out all her duties and needs more help. The couple have nannies and she has one assistant but she feels that she cannot do all the charity work she wants to without more staff. “I’d love to be everywhere but I can’t. I have three children and a husband who is prime minister. I need help. I need a team to help me serve the people.” Grégoire Trudeau may as well have added, “Let them eat brioche” for the reaction this has caused. She has been roundly criticised for being out of touch with ordinary Canadians, for living a life of Gucci bags and caviar, for basically being little more than a Kardashian.- Envy of Grégoire Trudeau Has Turned Into Bullying. by Heather Mallick [Toronto Star]
But the knives are out for Grégoire Trudeau. Sadly, many blades belong to other women. “If we’re going … to talk about women feeling overwhelmed, let’s talk about everyday Canadian women feeling overwhelmed,” NDP MP Niki Ashton told the CBC. Ashton, a high-profile feminist whom I respect, then started up again elsewhere about the Trudeaus having two government-funded nannies while most Canadians struggle for daycare.- The Political Wife as Ornament by Ashley Csanady [The National Post]
Sophie Gregoire Trudeau is caught in a similar firestorm of gender politics and Canadian miserliness. From hiring household staff to help with her three children to borrowing a brooch from Birks for a gala event, Gregoire Trudeau can hardly move without stirring up another day’s worth of picayune political chatter. This time, it all started with a simple request: If she’s going to attend even a fraction of the events to which she’s invited while still raising her young family, she might need more than one staffer to schedule and manage those demands. The opposition pounced. Much like the unnecessary “nannygate” dustup, they said, the request showed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his clan as out of touch with average Canadians. But the life of a political wife is hardly average. It might be 2016, as the saying now goes, but gender norms remain the norm for political spouses, for better or worse.- Sophie’s Role: What Do We Expect of Prime Ministers’ Spouses? by Shannon Proudfoot [Maclean's Magazine]
Q: How would you sum up the role of the prime minister’s spouse?
A: Vague. Ambiguous. It’s not institutionalized the way it is in other countries; the U.S. would be the most stark comparison. It’s an apparatus in the U.S. The first lady’s office is an official component of the White House, and she has a very large staff. She actually has a person on the payroll in charge of floral. In the Canadian case, that institutionalization is not there at all. What it means is that over time, as the person in the position changes, the duties and public face of the prime minister’s spouse changes, too. If we look at Stephen Harper’s wife, she was basically a non-entity in public. She maintained real distance from political life and just kept doing her own thing. Whereas other prime ministers’ wives—and Grégoire Trudeau is one of them—have been involved quite closely.
Q: Do you ever get a sense when people are critiquing Grégoire Trudeau that they’re bringing other things to that have nothing to do with her specifically? It seems like she is a bit of a projection screen.
A: She becomes a target for critics of her husband, critics of Justin Trudeau’s attention to aesthetic. Not just how they look and what their family looks like, but all the staged events. Of course, politicians always do these, but there seems to be a perception that this is excessive in his case—all the selfies, the self-focus basically, and then capitalizing on that for political gain. Some of that is directed at her as well, as though she’s just a prop, so why are we giving her a nanny or why does she have staff?
These attacks do seem sexist to me. After all, it seems like no one would have a problem with Grégoire Trudeau if she just did nothing, but they have a problem with the fact that she is doing a lot but struggling to get it all done with the level of assistance she currently has?
Considering that there is no "first lady of Canada," however, I wonder if there is some point in suggesting that if she does obtain extra assistance it should not come at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. Couldn't the Trudeau family afford to hire her an extra staffer on their own dime?
posted by slkinsey at 11:03 AM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Considering that there is no "first lady of Canada," however, I wonder if there is some point in suggesting that if she does obtain extra assistance it should not come at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. Couldn't the Trudeau family afford to hire her an extra staffer on their own dime?
posted by slkinsey at 11:03 AM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
At first my response was to feel that this was indeed pretty entitled, but the point about the US First Lady actually having a large staff made me rethink.
But this does seem like it ought to be a big old non-issue, since it seems like even if she hires a couple of staffers, we're talking what, $150,000 USD per year for both, including benefits? Probably less because insurance is cheaper - a lot of my total cost as an employee is employer insurance contribution. Not that $150,000 is peanuts in an individual sense, but it's peanuts in a government sense and not really worth a national fuss. If she were hiring a full-time pedicurist or something, perhaps, but otherwise "I think I need two more staffers with fairly well-defined office responsibilities" "well, I think you don't" sounds like small potatoes to me.
posted by Frowner at 11:06 AM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
But this does seem like it ought to be a big old non-issue, since it seems like even if she hires a couple of staffers, we're talking what, $150,000 USD per year for both, including benefits? Probably less because insurance is cheaper - a lot of my total cost as an employee is employer insurance contribution. Not that $150,000 is peanuts in an individual sense, but it's peanuts in a government sense and not really worth a national fuss. If she were hiring a full-time pedicurist or something, perhaps, but otherwise "I think I need two more staffers with fairly well-defined office responsibilities" "well, I think you don't" sounds like small potatoes to me.
posted by Frowner at 11:06 AM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
As usual, there's no right way to be a woman in public.
posted by praemunire at 11:09 AM on May 16, 2016 [171 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 11:09 AM on May 16, 2016 [171 favorites]
As usual, there's no right way to be a woman in public.
posted by praemunire
Sure there is.
posted by Fizz at 11:11 AM on May 16, 2016 [28 favorites]
posted by praemunire
Sure there is.
posted by Fizz at 11:11 AM on May 16, 2016 [28 favorites]
I guess, in a way, it makes sense that all the Harper supporters I know seem to think the PM's wife should live in the shadows and neither should be talking to the public. It's preposterous, but not entirely alien.
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:12 AM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:12 AM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Dunno. Maybe I'm not in the right circles for this, but it seemed to me more of a media controversy than one people I knew were actually discussing.
It was a rancorous election, and for all the swooning over Justin, there are still a lot of disappointed people out there. The political honeymoon was sure to end, but in the absence of Justin having done anything of substance, what is there for political opponents to grab onto? This issue comes along, and people may have reacted to it well beyond a level it merited -- but again, that's nothing I've actually encountered in RL.
She's in a public role. It is unreasonable to place someone in that kind of role without logistical staff support. And of course other people have worse problems to deal with that Sophie does. Of course. Are we facing a choice between giving Sophie two staffers or providing national daycare? No. So what's the real problem? Is there one?
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:12 AM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
It was a rancorous election, and for all the swooning over Justin, there are still a lot of disappointed people out there. The political honeymoon was sure to end, but in the absence of Justin having done anything of substance, what is there for political opponents to grab onto? This issue comes along, and people may have reacted to it well beyond a level it merited -- but again, that's nothing I've actually encountered in RL.
She's in a public role. It is unreasonable to place someone in that kind of role without logistical staff support. And of course other people have worse problems to deal with that Sophie does. Of course. Are we facing a choice between giving Sophie two staffers or providing national daycare? No. So what's the real problem? Is there one?
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:12 AM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
in the absence of Justin having done anything of substance
Seriously? You think he has done nothing of substance?
posted by srboisvert at 11:24 AM on May 16, 2016 [25 favorites]
Seriously? You think he has done nothing of substance?
posted by srboisvert at 11:24 AM on May 16, 2016 [25 favorites]
Personally it strikes me as strange that she wants 3 people to help manager her schedule. I've known (ninja) administrative assistants that are the personal assistant to executives while still managing executive assistant duties to a large group (200+) of people in a large corporation.
Look, it's great if she wants to spend time doing charity work, but how much of a support staff is needed to do that? The fact that this isn't necessarily expected of her (as other PM wives have had more private lives) makes this a choice of hers - should the government fund that? If she's overwhelmed (which is reasonable, given how much workload she seems to have taken on), why doesn't she cut back on charity work.
posted by el io at 11:25 AM on May 16, 2016
Look, it's great if she wants to spend time doing charity work, but how much of a support staff is needed to do that? The fact that this isn't necessarily expected of her (as other PM wives have had more private lives) makes this a choice of hers - should the government fund that? If she's overwhelmed (which is reasonable, given how much workload she seems to have taken on), why doesn't she cut back on charity work.
posted by el io at 11:25 AM on May 16, 2016
Look, it's great if she wants to spend time doing charity work, but how much of a support staff is needed to do that?
Mila Mulroney had 3 staffers and her own office. This entire 'story' is a nontroversy, unless you count partisan anger.
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:27 AM on May 16, 2016 [37 favorites]
Mila Mulroney had 3 staffers and her own office. This entire 'story' is a nontroversy, unless you count partisan anger.
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:27 AM on May 16, 2016 [37 favorites]
If she's overwhelmed (which is reasonable, given how much workload she seems to have taken on), why doesn't she cut back on charity work.
Because she feels some sort of obligation to use her position to do as much good for the country as she can, and thinks the good she can do by getting involved in charities would outweigh the extra $150,000 or whatever her staff would cost? It's not like she's asking for help with launching a bespoke yoga mat/cronut brand.
posted by No-sword at 11:31 AM on May 16, 2016 [58 favorites]
Because she feels some sort of obligation to use her position to do as much good for the country as she can, and thinks the good she can do by getting involved in charities would outweigh the extra $150,000 or whatever her staff would cost? It's not like she's asking for help with launching a bespoke yoga mat/cronut brand.
posted by No-sword at 11:31 AM on May 16, 2016 [58 favorites]
I'm on the record as thinking that the idea of a "first lady" as some sort of role is offensive and misogynistic. If she wants to go back to her entertainment reporter job, I think she should be allowed to do that and be paid for her work by whoever her employer is (presumably a broadcaster). If she wants to be a stay at home mom, then she should do that. If she wants to be some sort of society matron who goes to charity dinners and has tea, she should do that and pay for it however all the other society matrons pay for it (presumably from family money or their spouse's jobs or by charging endorsement fees). I'm fine with all that. If a political party wants to her her to be some sort of publicist, that's okey doke with me.
I don't see any reason the public should pay her or pay for help for her, since doing all this stuff is (and should be) her choice.
Whatever she chooses to do, the media should cover it the way they cover any other entertainment reporter/stay-at-home mom/society matron. She shouldn't get any more attention or coverage because of whom she is married to.
The problem is that if we do pay for it, we institutionalize the role of PMs spousewhich is wrong and bad, because we have no right to expect anything of the PMs spouse. The PM is elected(ish), the PMs spouse is the spouse of a person who has been elected and has the right to continue to be a private citizen and live their lives however they choose. We should not create the expectation that this person's role is to run around being some sort of supportive or quasi-ceremonial figure. It's unfair to expect that when we hire someone to do a job (like a PM), we get to expect anything from their spouse as well. Giving Sophie Gregoire any sort of quasi-official role creates that expectation. I even dislike the expectation that spouses be by the podium etc. during campaign and election events. Nobody else takes their spouse to a job interview.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:31 AM on May 16, 2016 [60 favorites]
I don't see any reason the public should pay her or pay for help for her, since doing all this stuff is (and should be) her choice.
Whatever she chooses to do, the media should cover it the way they cover any other entertainment reporter/stay-at-home mom/society matron. She shouldn't get any more attention or coverage because of whom she is married to.
The problem is that if we do pay for it, we institutionalize the role of PMs spousewhich is wrong and bad, because we have no right to expect anything of the PMs spouse. The PM is elected(ish), the PMs spouse is the spouse of a person who has been elected and has the right to continue to be a private citizen and live their lives however they choose. We should not create the expectation that this person's role is to run around being some sort of supportive or quasi-ceremonial figure. It's unfair to expect that when we hire someone to do a job (like a PM), we get to expect anything from their spouse as well. Giving Sophie Gregoire any sort of quasi-official role creates that expectation. I even dislike the expectation that spouses be by the podium etc. during campaign and election events. Nobody else takes their spouse to a job interview.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:31 AM on May 16, 2016 [60 favorites]
It seems to me like the wife of a serving PM is likely to be in a position to leverage reasonable office spending, such as is proposed, to the efficient advantage of many charities. Hence the public are likely to gain considerably from such investment. A couple of $100k seems like a probable good deal to me.
posted by howfar at 11:32 AM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by howfar at 11:32 AM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
And for the record, I'm really offended by all these implications in the news and here that this is a partisan thing. I support Trudeau as PM. I was a child when Mulroney was in office, but if he were in office now I would certainly object to his wife having a staff paid from the public purses. I'm not approaching this as a partisan thing. I see it as a feminist thing.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:33 AM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:33 AM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
You think he has done nothing of substance?
Yes, I do. He's done a lot on the surface, with a proportional cabinet, and international meetings, and that's all important. But in terms of the legislative agenda, there hasn't been much to look at. He's passed a budget, with a deficit much larger than predicted but no-one seemed to have a problem with, and he's started on end of life legislation. So no, I don't think he's done much of substance yet.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:34 AM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, I do. He's done a lot on the surface, with a proportional cabinet, and international meetings, and that's all important. But in terms of the legislative agenda, there hasn't been much to look at. He's passed a budget, with a deficit much larger than predicted but no-one seemed to have a problem with, and he's started on end of life legislation. So no, I don't think he's done much of substance yet.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:34 AM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
She's in a public role. It is unreasonable to place someone in that kind of role without logistical staff support.
It's sad that people need to wrap this up in sexist rhetoric, but I think that there is a valid question to be asked about what Canadians is appropriate for Grégoire Trudeau's public role to be. If the First Spouse of Canada is to be an active, quasi-political role like it is in the US, then absolutely, the country should pony up the money to support the person doing that role. And it's important to remember that she is asking for 3 people, not 24.
But, is Grégoire Trudeau taking on this role because Canada needs/wants it, or because she want to steer her career in that direction? If it's the latter -- it's not crazy, or sexist, to think that maybe the Trudeau's should pay.
The only good thing about a longer stretch of time with Kim Campbell as PM would have been that we could have taken a look at how the country handled this when the PM's spouse was male. I'll admit to curiosity about what will happen in the U.S. when/if Bill Clinton is First Gentleman.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:40 AM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's sad that people need to wrap this up in sexist rhetoric, but I think that there is a valid question to be asked about what Canadians is appropriate for Grégoire Trudeau's public role to be. If the First Spouse of Canada is to be an active, quasi-political role like it is in the US, then absolutely, the country should pony up the money to support the person doing that role. And it's important to remember that she is asking for 3 people, not 24.
But, is Grégoire Trudeau taking on this role because Canada needs/wants it, or because she want to steer her career in that direction? If it's the latter -- it's not crazy, or sexist, to think that maybe the Trudeau's should pay.
The only good thing about a longer stretch of time with Kim Campbell as PM would have been that we could have taken a look at how the country handled this when the PM's spouse was male. I'll admit to curiosity about what will happen in the U.S. when/if Bill Clinton is First Gentleman.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:40 AM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
She's in a public role.
She is not in a public role. She is married to someone in a public role.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:43 AM on May 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
She is not in a public role. She is married to someone in a public role.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:43 AM on May 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'll admit to curiosity about what will happen in the U.S. when/if Bill Clinton is First Gentleman.
First 'Bubba'?
First Dude?
Mr. Former President?
Mr. *makes double gun finger gesture while winking*
posted by Fizz at 11:45 AM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
First 'Bubba'?
First Dude?
Mr. Former President?
Mr. *makes double gun finger gesture while winking*
posted by Fizz at 11:45 AM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
We should not create the expectation that this person's role is to run around being some sort of supportive or quasi-ceremonial figure.
Until we invent a world in which socializing is entirely divorced from the domestic sphere, it's absurd to expect that the spouse of a major political figure can just go on living her private life. I mean, why do you think the U.S. has such a formalized role for the First Lady? It's because she has to go to all the damn dinners.
posted by praemunire at 11:46 AM on May 16, 2016 [27 favorites]
Until we invent a world in which socializing is entirely divorced from the domestic sphere, it's absurd to expect that the spouse of a major political figure can just go on living her private life. I mean, why do you think the U.S. has such a formalized role for the First Lady? It's because she has to go to all the damn dinners.
posted by praemunire at 11:46 AM on May 16, 2016 [27 favorites]
Dark Messiah: Mila Mulroney had 3 staffers and her own office. This entire 'story' is a nontroversy, unless you count partisan anger.
Do keep in mind that Mulroney ended up extremely unpopular, especially in Alberta. Part of the appeal of Preston Manning to Albertans in the wake of the Mulroney collapse was that Manning was "plain folk". No expensive suits or haircuts. Not giving off the signals that he liked shiny things and might be tempted to dip into the public purse (or accept brown envelopes) to satisfy a desire for the hoity-toity life.
It may be completely unfair to Sophie Trudeau, but this had the sound of an "I'd like to be part of a comfortably corrupt elite" dogwhistle to my raised-in-rural-Alberta ears. Not that I care too much; I've lived in the city long enough that aristocratic pretensions don't bother me as much as they used to.
I do like "nontroversy", though.
posted by clawsoon at 11:46 AM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Do keep in mind that Mulroney ended up extremely unpopular, especially in Alberta. Part of the appeal of Preston Manning to Albertans in the wake of the Mulroney collapse was that Manning was "plain folk". No expensive suits or haircuts. Not giving off the signals that he liked shiny things and might be tempted to dip into the public purse (or accept brown envelopes) to satisfy a desire for the hoity-toity life.
It may be completely unfair to Sophie Trudeau, but this had the sound of an "I'd like to be part of a comfortably corrupt elite" dogwhistle to my raised-in-rural-Alberta ears. Not that I care too much; I've lived in the city long enough that aristocratic pretensions don't bother me as much as they used to.
I do like "nontroversy", though.
posted by clawsoon at 11:46 AM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Another perspective (one that I share to some degree) from Neil Macdonald at CBC: The hacking of tall poppy Sophie Grégoire Trudeau
posted by barnoley at 11:47 AM on May 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by barnoley at 11:47 AM on May 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
She's in a public role.
She is not in a public role. She is married to someone in a public role.
She's specifically saying that she wants to do these things and needs support to do them, and it's obvious that some not-insignificant fraction of the public wants her to do them.
posted by Etrigan at 11:48 AM on May 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
She is not in a public role. She is married to someone in a public role.
Grégoire Trudeau said she received regular requests from charities to promote their causes, but she could not respond to them all without an extra hand.Looks like that public role has been thrust upon her.
“It’s hard to choose, because it’s touching when people ask for your help. People really lay out their suffering in some of the letters I receive.”
She's specifically saying that she wants to do these things and needs support to do them, and it's obvious that some not-insignificant fraction of the public wants her to do them.
posted by Etrigan at 11:48 AM on May 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
I found this whole story surprising in that I kind of assumed 24 Sussex came with a lot of these frills, no questions asked. Gregoire-Trudeau is expected to make a lot of appearances and travel a lot. That's tricky to do with kids, especially considering it's not like her husband is often going to get to stay home and watch them when she's busy. I don't find it unreasonable for the Trudeaus to have nannies and some admin staff to help with things not directly associated with Justin being PM. It seems like burying your head in the sand to think Gregoire-Trudeau has no expectations on her from the same public that is inundating her with requests.
“If we’re going … to talk about women feeling overwhelmed, let’s talk about everyday Canadian women feeling overwhelmed,” NDP MP Niki Ashton told the CBC. Ashton, a high-profile feminist whom I respect, then started up again elsewhere about the Trudeaus having two government-funded nannies while most Canadians struggle for daycare.
How is that relevant to office help?
That's kinda a cheap shot. It's not relevant to office help because about office help. It's about the NDP having made an election promise for universal affordable daycare. It appealed to me a great deal, too, because that shit is currently up to $1400 a month in my city and anyone able to stay at home in this city is really, really fortunate to have a spouse making a ton of cash or a home gifted to them. It's one of the reasons I vote for them over Trudeau's party even if I appreciate he's not Harper and am cautiously optimistic about his leadership these days.
posted by Hoopo at 11:54 AM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
“If we’re going … to talk about women feeling overwhelmed, let’s talk about everyday Canadian women feeling overwhelmed,” NDP MP Niki Ashton told the CBC. Ashton, a high-profile feminist whom I respect, then started up again elsewhere about the Trudeaus having two government-funded nannies while most Canadians struggle for daycare.
How is that relevant to office help?
That's kinda a cheap shot. It's not relevant to office help because about office help. It's about the NDP having made an election promise for universal affordable daycare. It appealed to me a great deal, too, because that shit is currently up to $1400 a month in my city and anyone able to stay at home in this city is really, really fortunate to have a spouse making a ton of cash or a home gifted to them. It's one of the reasons I vote for them over Trudeau's party even if I appreciate he's not Harper and am cautiously optimistic about his leadership these days.
posted by Hoopo at 11:54 AM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Prime Minister's wife asks for resources to do more charity work! I love Canadian political scandals.
posted by Damienmce at 11:55 AM on May 16, 2016 [101 favorites]
posted by Damienmce at 11:55 AM on May 16, 2016 [101 favorites]
I mean, why do you think the U.S. has such a formalized role for the First Lady? It's because she has to go to all the damn dinners.
She can attend state dinners, if she wants. I mean she's going to eat dinner anywya, right? Dinners are the least of it. (or she can not attend dinner, do you really think the state dinner will be cancelled and treaties abandonned if the PM says "Sophie won't be joining us tonight, she had to work in Vancouver this week"?). Or if he were single would international diplomacy fall apart?
We can use all the "has the right" language we want, but the reality is a bunch of charities and countries expect Sophie to do things, as do we collectively as a country, and some people expect her to stay-at-home or pay to have the right to use her publicity. It is putting your head in the sand to say she has a right while her husband is PM to a private life - she will be scrutinized regardless of what she does.
Would you recongize Chretien's wife if you passed her in the street? What about Paul Martin's? John Turner's? Harper's? Mulroney's was the only wife who got any press before Sophie Gregoire, so it seems like "she will be scrutinized no matter what" is demonstrably false.
She's specifically saying that she wants to do these things and needs support to do them, and it's obvious that some not-insignificant fraction of the public wants her to do them.
Yes, my point is that we do not have the right to want this. Which means she has no obligation to cede to this desire, which means if she chooses to do so it's her own doing. If we create the impression that she is going this because the public wants it or that she has some obligation, then what happens to the next PM's spouse if they don't want it? Will it limit our candidates to people married to people who want to do this kind of thing (as I think it does in the US)?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:56 AM on May 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
She can attend state dinners, if she wants. I mean she's going to eat dinner anywya, right? Dinners are the least of it. (or she can not attend dinner, do you really think the state dinner will be cancelled and treaties abandonned if the PM says "Sophie won't be joining us tonight, she had to work in Vancouver this week"?). Or if he were single would international diplomacy fall apart?
We can use all the "has the right" language we want, but the reality is a bunch of charities and countries expect Sophie to do things, as do we collectively as a country, and some people expect her to stay-at-home or pay to have the right to use her publicity. It is putting your head in the sand to say she has a right while her husband is PM to a private life - she will be scrutinized regardless of what she does.
Would you recongize Chretien's wife if you passed her in the street? What about Paul Martin's? John Turner's? Harper's? Mulroney's was the only wife who got any press before Sophie Gregoire, so it seems like "she will be scrutinized no matter what" is demonstrably false.
She's specifically saying that she wants to do these things and needs support to do them, and it's obvious that some not-insignificant fraction of the public wants her to do them.
Yes, my point is that we do not have the right to want this. Which means she has no obligation to cede to this desire, which means if she chooses to do so it's her own doing. If we create the impression that she is going this because the public wants it or that she has some obligation, then what happens to the next PM's spouse if they don't want it? Will it limit our candidates to people married to people who want to do this kind of thing (as I think it does in the US)?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:56 AM on May 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
It is unreasonable to place someone in that kind of role without logistical staff support.
From the perspective of someone in the US, it does seem strange to me that the spouse of the head of government doesn't have her own staff, if only just to manage public relations and appearances. Anyway, it's good to see that Trudeau spice are still controversial up north.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:56 AM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
From the perspective of someone in the US, it does seem strange to me that the spouse of the head of government doesn't have her own staff, if only just to manage public relations and appearances. Anyway, it's good to see that Trudeau spice are still controversial up north.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:56 AM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I do wonder what it would look like if we weren't so stuck in the cis-het patriarchy. I mean, if this were a poly relationship, what would it look like?
A friend of mine is a queer person and had a business dinner to attend with her coworkers. The coworkers were allowed/encouraged to invite their spouses. But this was an awkward spot for my friend, who did not have a partner, but also didn't want to a) out herself, b) introduce her business colleagues into her private life nor c) introduce her private life to her business colleagues. The very hetero-focused "couple"-dom and all of the assumptions that it is composed of is kinda icky, once you remove the assumption that it is the norm.
So, with this in mind, I agree with If I only had a penguin's feminist questioning. But then I also agree that, with how things are right now, (and my USian experience with our FLOTUS extraordinaire), I don't think it is out of line AT ALL that Ms. Gregoire Trudeau would like to use her opportunity of a higher-profile position as spouse of the PM of Canada to do as much good as she can with charity work, due to her new-found name recognition.
posted by jillithd at 11:57 AM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
A friend of mine is a queer person and had a business dinner to attend with her coworkers. The coworkers were allowed/encouraged to invite their spouses. But this was an awkward spot for my friend, who did not have a partner, but also didn't want to a) out herself, b) introduce her business colleagues into her private life nor c) introduce her private life to her business colleagues. The very hetero-focused "couple"-dom and all of the assumptions that it is composed of is kinda icky, once you remove the assumption that it is the norm.
So, with this in mind, I agree with If I only had a penguin's feminist questioning. But then I also agree that, with how things are right now, (and my USian experience with our FLOTUS extraordinaire), I don't think it is out of line AT ALL that Ms. Gregoire Trudeau would like to use her opportunity of a higher-profile position as spouse of the PM of Canada to do as much good as she can with charity work, due to her new-found name recognition.
posted by jillithd at 11:57 AM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
So just to be clear...If I get a bunch of a requests to speak at charities and I want to do it, should the government hire assistants for me to do that?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:58 AM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:58 AM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Given that at least amongst the press there is some sort of outcry about this I think this would be a good opportunity for Parliament to decide what roll the spouse of the PM should have. While I think the traditional conception is that the spouse shouldn't have any, and probably didn't in a lot of cases, we can't expect them to continue on with their career while they're married to the PM and have to still attend dinners and the like. Our current PM has the fairly unique perspective of growing up in the PM's household and I think he should take the initiative on this.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:58 AM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:58 AM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
So just to be clear...If I get a bunch of a requests to speak at charities and I want to do it, should the government hire assistants for me to do that?
are you married to a government official and expected to be speaking as a representative of the government? then sure!
posted by palomar at 12:00 PM on May 16, 2016 [48 favorites]
are you married to a government official and expected to be speaking as a representative of the government? then sure!
posted by palomar at 12:00 PM on May 16, 2016 [48 favorites]
While I think the traditional conception is that the spouse shouldn't have any, and probably didn't in a lot of cases, we can't expect them to continue on with their career while they're married to the PM and have to still attend dinners and the like.
I don't think it would be crazy to make the role "you're not expected to attend dinners, either, but you can if you want to." WTF. It's 2015*, as someone or other famous once said, how is it even conceivably ok to expect wives to go to their husband's work dinners to the point where they can't have careers of their own?
*OK, not anymore, but you get my point.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:01 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think it would be crazy to make the role "you're not expected to attend dinners, either, but you can if you want to." WTF. It's 2015*, as someone or other famous once said, how is it even conceivably ok to expect wives to go to their husband's work dinners to the point where they can't have careers of their own?
*OK, not anymore, but you get my point.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:01 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
But is the PM's spouse a representative of the government in Canada?
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:01 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:01 PM on May 16, 2016
So just to be clear...If I get a bunch of a requests to speak at charities and I want to do it, should the government hire assistants for me to do that?
That depends. Are you married to the head of government?
It seems a bit facile to suggest Gregoire Trudeau could just keep working at this point. There's really no way for her to do so. Security is an obvious huge concern, for one. So is the idea that she and her employer would have to be SCRUPULOUSLY careful to avoid conflicts of interest, any accusations of favouritism, etc.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:02 PM on May 16, 2016 [42 favorites]
That depends. Are you married to the head of government?
It seems a bit facile to suggest Gregoire Trudeau could just keep working at this point. There's really no way for her to do so. Security is an obvious huge concern, for one. So is the idea that she and her employer would have to be SCRUPULOUSLY careful to avoid conflicts of interest, any accusations of favouritism, etc.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:02 PM on May 16, 2016 [42 favorites]
are you married to a government official and expected to be speaking as a representative of the government?
Sophie Gregoire is only one of those things. And the other (expected to...) is the point relevant to whether she should have assistants. It is not right that she be expected to, and to pay for assistants implies that she is.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:03 PM on May 16, 2016
Sophie Gregoire is only one of those things. And the other (expected to...) is the point relevant to whether she should have assistants. It is not right that she be expected to, and to pay for assistants implies that she is.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:03 PM on May 16, 2016
Do keep in mind that Mulroney ended up extremely unpopular, especially in Alberta.
Yep, and he left a woman holding the bag as his party was almost scoured from the political landscape.
I mostly reference Mrs. Mulroney because she's a good analogue to Gregoire-Trudea because both were / are exceptionally popular. I don't have any problems with either of them wanting to engage with the public and lend their popularity to charities and social causes.
The 'role' and fund were established under Mulroney, which was ages ago; for people to get their dander up now is morbidly amusing at best.
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:03 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yep, and he left a woman holding the bag as his party was almost scoured from the political landscape.
I mostly reference Mrs. Mulroney because she's a good analogue to Gregoire-Trudea because both were / are exceptionally popular. I don't have any problems with either of them wanting to engage with the public and lend their popularity to charities and social causes.
The 'role' and fund were established under Mulroney, which was ages ago; for people to get their dander up now is morbidly amusing at best.
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:03 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
If I get a bunch of a requests to speak at charities and I want to do it, should the government hire assistants for me to do that?
Get back to us when that happens.
posted by Etrigan at 12:05 PM on May 16, 2016 [27 favorites]
Get back to us when that happens.
posted by Etrigan at 12:05 PM on May 16, 2016 [27 favorites]
It seems a bit facile to suggest Gregoire Trudeau could just keep working at this point. There's really no way for her to do so. Security is an obvious huge concern, for one. So is the idea that she and her employer would have to be SCRUPULOUSLY careful to avoid conflicts of interest, any accusations of favouritism, etc.
She's an entertainment reporter. It's not like her job is getting government contracts or something. And as for security, if they had adult kids, those kids would have jobs and have security at their jobs. It's doable if she wants to do it, which we know because it is done for family members of other public figures. And that's absolutely something I think the public should pay for (security). Presumably their kids have all sorts of security at school now.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:06 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
She's an entertainment reporter. It's not like her job is getting government contracts or something. And as for security, if they had adult kids, those kids would have jobs and have security at their jobs. It's doable if she wants to do it, which we know because it is done for family members of other public figures. And that's absolutely something I think the public should pay for (security). Presumably their kids have all sorts of security at school now.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 12:06 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is it really true that the spouse of a Canadian PM could work an ordinary job while her husband was in office? I would think that many prospective employers would either be seeking advantage from her closeness to the PM, or would be afraid of being perceived as doing so. Even if the employer doesn't care, political opponents of the PM would be sure to make up some kind of "where there's smoke" kind of fake-scandal.
Or, at least, that's what I'd expect in the US.
From that point of view, the job of PM is basically taking away the opportunity for honest employment from the spouse. A modest office staff seems very reasonable given what's being taken away.
posted by bgribble at 12:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
Or, at least, that's what I'd expect in the US.
From that point of view, the job of PM is basically taking away the opportunity for honest employment from the spouse. A modest office staff seems very reasonable given what's being taken away.
posted by bgribble at 12:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
Aline Chretien never so much as gave an interview in all the many years Jean Chretien was in office. She made no appearances without Jean and made no public comments ever about anything. I don't remember any criticism of her for that. She was just considered a very elegant, very clever, very private lady.
Also, yes Mila Mulroney did all kinds of public appearances while Brian was in office, and she had three staff and a physical office to do it. She and Brian got all kinds of criticism for it. And she did a lot of work for charities.
The Prime Minister's spouse is not "expected" to do anything in particular. When they do it it's because they are choosing to do it. Right now, SGT wants to do it, but she's working off her dining room table. I don't know why there needs to be a one-size-fits-every-spouse solution. I'm sure Stephen Harper's staff were used to assist Laureen with the appearances she made. Is that not taxpayer dollars?
posted by ThatCanadianGirl at 12:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
Also, yes Mila Mulroney did all kinds of public appearances while Brian was in office, and she had three staff and a physical office to do it. She and Brian got all kinds of criticism for it. And she did a lot of work for charities.
The Prime Minister's spouse is not "expected" to do anything in particular. When they do it it's because they are choosing to do it. Right now, SGT wants to do it, but she's working off her dining room table. I don't know why there needs to be a one-size-fits-every-spouse solution. I'm sure Stephen Harper's staff were used to assist Laureen with the appearances she made. Is that not taxpayer dollars?
posted by ThatCanadianGirl at 12:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
There are several Middle Eastern countries where heads of state have multiple wives and you can actually read all about how these issues are accommodated in international diplomacy! Every now and then (most usually funerals, from my recollection) two or three wives will attend a Western event, although usually such rulers make state appearances in the West with just one wife. As they are mostly still monarchies of various sorts, they just pay for themselves however they want without much oversight.
It'd be nice if politicians' spouses could maintain private lives, but the truth is that in a modern democracy with a free press, becoming a politician even at a very low level is a family decision because the family will unavoidably face scrutiny ... and public engagements. At a provincial or national level, it's almost impossible for the spouse to NOT be at least a half-time unpaid "employee" of the government. Penguin, it sounds like since the world we have (where the PM's spouse is expected to attend events of both national symbolic import and do actual international relations stuff) isn't the one you want, you want to punish Sophie for having to exist in an imperfect world where she DOES have these responsibilities on behalf of Canada, whether she ought to not not. That's unfair too.
Final note, I read Trudeau's entire campaign biography (I am that sort of nerd) and it's pretty friggin' clear these two are a package deal. Before Sophie, Justin was "personable undirected guy doing random jobs," but after Sophie he rapidly became "goal-oriented fast-rising politician." To say she "might" want nothing to do with his political life is laughable; some other hypothetical PM's spouse might, but Sophie is an integral part of Justin-the-politician. Without her there is no him.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [33 favorites]
It'd be nice if politicians' spouses could maintain private lives, but the truth is that in a modern democracy with a free press, becoming a politician even at a very low level is a family decision because the family will unavoidably face scrutiny ... and public engagements. At a provincial or national level, it's almost impossible for the spouse to NOT be at least a half-time unpaid "employee" of the government. Penguin, it sounds like since the world we have (where the PM's spouse is expected to attend events of both national symbolic import and do actual international relations stuff) isn't the one you want, you want to punish Sophie for having to exist in an imperfect world where she DOES have these responsibilities on behalf of Canada, whether she ought to not not. That's unfair too.
Final note, I read Trudeau's entire campaign biography (I am that sort of nerd) and it's pretty friggin' clear these two are a package deal. Before Sophie, Justin was "personable undirected guy doing random jobs," but after Sophie he rapidly became "goal-oriented fast-rising politician." To say she "might" want nothing to do with his political life is laughable; some other hypothetical PM's spouse might, but Sophie is an integral part of Justin-the-politician. Without her there is no him.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [33 favorites]
She's an entertainment reporter. It's not like her job is getting government contracts or something.
And when her employer fails to cover something critical of her husband? When they cover something praising her husband?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:10 PM on May 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
And when her employer fails to cover something critical of her husband? When they cover something praising her husband?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:10 PM on May 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
I think it would be a great thing if we could specify that the PM's spouse had no official role and that they could live life as a private citizen (which they are). But if that were the case I don't think they could pick and choose what events to attend, it would need to be all or nothing, at least within classes of events. So maybe the spouse would have to attend at official state dinners or visits to England or USA, but not anything else. If they could pick and choose then it would look like a slight on whatever they decided to skip.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:11 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:11 PM on May 16, 2016
Or when a politician gets a lot of celebrity news coverage by doing a charity boxing match against a political opponent?
Entertainment reporter actually seems like an EXTRA HARD job to keep as a political spouse with the state of modern infotainment. Politicians' spouses continuing to work is pretty contingent on them having uncontroversial, unambitious jobs. Thanks largely to feminism, high-achieving men don't really have housewives anymore ... they tend to marry equally high-achieving spouses. As do driven women. It seems unlikely we're going back to the days when political wives were homemakers, teachers, and nurses rather than lawyers, doctors, professors, reporters, etc ... jobs that can reflect on the political spouse.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:15 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Entertainment reporter actually seems like an EXTRA HARD job to keep as a political spouse with the state of modern infotainment. Politicians' spouses continuing to work is pretty contingent on them having uncontroversial, unambitious jobs. Thanks largely to feminism, high-achieving men don't really have housewives anymore ... they tend to marry equally high-achieving spouses. As do driven women. It seems unlikely we're going back to the days when political wives were homemakers, teachers, and nurses rather than lawyers, doctors, professors, reporters, etc ... jobs that can reflect on the political spouse.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:15 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
She's expected to have these duties because we want our leaders to be a reflection of us. Not some pie in the sky ideal.
And since the mid '70's that reflection includes both spouses working. Sure, it might be nice if the cost of living was so low that only one half of a couple needed to work, but inflation has put the boots to that idea, except for the idle rich. So, here we are.
If she didn't work, she might get support from traditionalists who see her role as wife and mother. But for the vast majority of the population that stay at home role is a fantasy. So she rolls up her sleeves and pitches in, like most of our partners do.
Plus it's her choice - let's stop telling her how to live her life.
posted by Zedcaster at 12:17 PM on May 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
And since the mid '70's that reflection includes both spouses working. Sure, it might be nice if the cost of living was so low that only one half of a couple needed to work, but inflation has put the boots to that idea, except for the idle rich. So, here we are.
If she didn't work, she might get support from traditionalists who see her role as wife and mother. But for the vast majority of the population that stay at home role is a fantasy. So she rolls up her sleeves and pitches in, like most of our partners do.
Plus it's her choice - let's stop telling her how to live her life.
posted by Zedcaster at 12:17 PM on May 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
political opponents of the PM would be sure to make up some kind of "where there's smoke" kind of fake-scandal
Surely not!
If she accepted money in exchange for speaking at a charity event, there would be some sort of fake scandal. If she refused to speak at charity events, there would be some sort of fake scandal. If she refused to accept money to speak at a charity event and left her children at home, there would would be some sort of fake scandal.
I think the real scandal is someone associated with the government is using a previously established fund for its intended purpose. That's not how government normally works.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:20 PM on May 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
Surely not!
If she accepted money in exchange for speaking at a charity event, there would be some sort of fake scandal. If she refused to speak at charity events, there would be some sort of fake scandal. If she refused to accept money to speak at a charity event and left her children at home, there would would be some sort of fake scandal.
I think the real scandal is someone associated with the government is using a previously established fund for its intended purpose. That's not how government normally works.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:20 PM on May 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
She's expected to have these duties because we want our leaders to be a reflection of us. Not some pie in the sky ideal.
And since the mid '70's that reflection includes both spouses working.
And before that, that reflection included the wife being the social hostess.
posted by Etrigan at 12:21 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
And since the mid '70's that reflection includes both spouses working.
And before that, that reflection included the wife being the social hostess.
posted by Etrigan at 12:21 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
And it's important to remember that she is asking for 3 people, not 24.
Proportionally that's a US-sized staff of 27. Its hard to get part-timers to deal with the fractional percentages though.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 12:23 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Proportionally that's a US-sized staff of 27. Its hard to get part-timers to deal with the fractional percentages though.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 12:23 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Plus it's her choice - let's stop telling her how to live her life
Yeah, this. Why should she want to continue being an entertainment reporter when she could be doing something much more useful and impactful?
And if she's taking on a new job, it's reasonable to request that her employers provide similar resources to do that job as were allocated to previous holders of that post.
posted by tel3path at 12:23 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, this. Why should she want to continue being an entertainment reporter when she could be doing something much more useful and impactful?
And if she's taking on a new job, it's reasonable to request that her employers provide similar resources to do that job as were allocated to previous holders of that post.
posted by tel3path at 12:23 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Aline Chretien never so much as gave an interview in all the many years Jean Chretien was in office. She made no appearances without Jean and made no public comments ever about anything. I don't remember any criticism of her for that. She was just considered a very elegant, very clever, very private lady
Don't forget her bodyguard-esque door slamming skills.
posted by srboisvert at 12:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
Don't forget her bodyguard-esque door slamming skills.
posted by srboisvert at 12:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
"But she's not elected/an employee!" well no. Once your spouse is elected PM/President, you are a National Figure no matter what you do. You need extra security, you have to be extra discreet, anything you say or do off the cuff can theoretically cause an international incident. You have no privacy. Your kids are under scrutiny, as well as your parenting, finances, and choice of what to wear anytime you peek out of the house.
That's a hell of an impact on a person's life. She's not asking for extras, she's asking for support to handle a role she has no choice but to fulfill. You can't really "quit" either, unless you divorce. Even then, you're going to be a figure of national interest.
Think of it as hazard pay/benefits.
posted by emjaybee at 12:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [26 favorites]
That's a hell of an impact on a person's life. She's not asking for extras, she's asking for support to handle a role she has no choice but to fulfill. You can't really "quit" either, unless you divorce. Even then, you're going to be a figure of national interest.
Think of it as hazard pay/benefits.
posted by emjaybee at 12:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [26 favorites]
Dark Messiah: I mostly reference Mrs. Mulrony because she's a good analogue to Gregoire-Trudea because both were / are exceptionally popular. I don't have any problems with either of them wanting to engage with the public and lend their popularity to charities and social causes.
Mila Mulroney was popular with some people, for a while. But with other people:
Maureen McTeer put her kid in daycare, dammit!
posted by clawsoon at 12:26 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Mila Mulroney was popular with some people, for a while. But with other people:
She took on a greater role than many Prime Ministers’ wives while Mulroney was in office, acting as a campaigner for several children’s charities. Her role, which some claimed was trying to become a “First Lady,” was criticized (especially when she hired a personal office and staff and for her lavish redecoration of the Prime Minister's residence). Her frequent shopping sprees became tabloid fodder, with some in the press dubbing her “Imelda” for her love of shoes (she allegedly had over 100 pairs).Anyway... if I had two nannies, I could attend a lot of dinners. It would look better on her (to me, anyway) if she was lobbying for universal daycare for all of us instead. And maybe she is. I dunno. But the "already has two nannies part" digs in a bit for personal "could you rub it in our faces any more obviously?" reasons.
Maureen McTeer put her kid in daycare, dammit!
posted by clawsoon at 12:26 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
if i were sophie trudeau, i would immediately stop making any public appearances. when confronted about it, i would call a press conference, and answer each question with "why don't you go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut? why don't you go take a flying fuck at the moooooooon?" and then throw things at the reporter who was enough of a jackass to give me shit about it, before leaving canada forever for crone island.
i think what i'm saying here is, it's a good thing sophie trudeau is much, much better than me at being a woman in the public eye. also everyone reporting this manufactured crisis should eat a giant bag of dicks.
posted by Mayor West at 12:28 PM on May 16, 2016 [39 favorites]
i think what i'm saying here is, it's a good thing sophie trudeau is much, much better than me at being a woman in the public eye. also everyone reporting this manufactured crisis should eat a giant bag of dicks.
posted by Mayor West at 12:28 PM on May 16, 2016 [39 favorites]
I guess what occurs to me is that if she can't "work" as a spouse, she can't really do anything, and that's kind of a drag in this day and age. It's not just that we expect women to have careers - women want careers. In a way it's a kind of wrong that is done to her, in that at a time when she would normally be consolidating her career, she has to step back from it to be a political wife. That's a real loss, especially if they divorce later on.
Actually, I think it's pretty reasonable that the PM's partner should be able to assume a public role, because the nature of our media make it such that they can't really have a meaningful private career. It's not just that there might be suspicion of influence or even security risks - it's that they would be pestered all the time. I'd do it myself, frankly - if I knew that the PM's partner worked at the library and I had a pressing political concern, I would be there, because that's one channel to reach the people in power.
posted by Frowner at 12:30 PM on May 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
Actually, I think it's pretty reasonable that the PM's partner should be able to assume a public role, because the nature of our media make it such that they can't really have a meaningful private career. It's not just that there might be suspicion of influence or even security risks - it's that they would be pestered all the time. I'd do it myself, frankly - if I knew that the PM's partner worked at the library and I had a pressing political concern, I would be there, because that's one channel to reach the people in power.
posted by Frowner at 12:30 PM on May 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
We should not create the expectation that this person's role is to run around being some sort of supportive or quasi-ceremonial figure.
We already have someone whose job it is to ceremonially represent Canada: the Governor General. The position is not gender-specific, and no one is forced into it.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:31 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
We already have someone whose job it is to ceremonially represent Canada: the Governor General. The position is not gender-specific, and no one is forced into it.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:31 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
She can attend state dinners, if she wants. I mean she's going to eat dinner anywya, right? Dinners are the least of it. (or she can not attend dinner, do you really think the state dinner will be cancelled and treaties abandonned if the PM says "Sophie won't be joining us tonight, she had to work in Vancouver this week"?).
I can only conclude from this passage that you genuinely have no idea how international diplomacy (or domestic ceremony involving the government) ordinarily works. (Possibly you've never actually attended a formal dinner, either, since you seem to think it's just a matter of showing up on time and noshing?) Yes, let's criticize this woman for not conforming to your notion of how everything should operate from ideal first principles, including the right to arbitrarily remake social convention according to one's own notion of ideal first principles, even though those principles aren't shared by a number of the people in the social grouping.
posted by praemunire at 12:32 PM on May 16, 2016 [52 favorites]
I can only conclude from this passage that you genuinely have no idea how international diplomacy (or domestic ceremony involving the government) ordinarily works. (Possibly you've never actually attended a formal dinner, either, since you seem to think it's just a matter of showing up on time and noshing?) Yes, let's criticize this woman for not conforming to your notion of how everything should operate from ideal first principles, including the right to arbitrarily remake social convention according to one's own notion of ideal first principles, even though those principles aren't shared by a number of the people in the social grouping.
posted by praemunire at 12:32 PM on May 16, 2016 [52 favorites]
I am largely incapable of managing my own social schedule or keeping up with my own correspondence, and I am a single person with no children and I go almost nowhere. It’s kind of boggling to my mind that anyone has a problem with a PM’s wife is asking for such limited institutional support in order to serve in her current role. I can’t even imagine how many people contact her on a daily basis.
I mean, would Canadians be pleased if she refused to answer any emails or phone calls? Would they think it reflected badly on them if she said “I do not have the bandwidth for this” and checked out? It seems like they would. In that case, I think staff is completely appropriate.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:33 PM on May 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
I mean, would Canadians be pleased if she refused to answer any emails or phone calls? Would they think it reflected badly on them if she said “I do not have the bandwidth for this” and checked out? It seems like they would. In that case, I think staff is completely appropriate.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:33 PM on May 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
At a provincial or national level, it's almost impossible for the spouse to NOT be at least a half-time unpaid "employee" of the government.
Well, for FEMALE spouses, at least. It doesn't seem to be an issue for Joachim Sauer, for example, although I don't follow German politics closely enough to know any details. These expectations are placed primarily, as per usual, upon women, and pretending they don't exist by saying "well it's not a real job because i think it shouldn't be a real job" will do absolutely nothing to make things better for any woman anywhere.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:39 PM on May 16, 2016 [21 favorites]
Well, for FEMALE spouses, at least. It doesn't seem to be an issue for Joachim Sauer, for example, although I don't follow German politics closely enough to know any details. These expectations are placed primarily, as per usual, upon women, and pretending they don't exist by saying "well it's not a real job because i think it shouldn't be a real job" will do absolutely nothing to make things better for any woman anywhere.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:39 PM on May 16, 2016 [21 favorites]
Again the Trudeaus were not my preferred choice for 24 Sussex but god damn, if we scrutinized every hire made with tax dollars like this we'd probably have a lot less public servants. Did I ever tell you about the time I worked for the Census and they bought all these new big high speed scanners but forgot to make a census form without staples and I had to work in a warehouse with a hundred or so other people pulling staples from census forms every day for months? i don't remember a lot of outrage over that and it was wayyyy more wasteful than a couple of assistants to facilitate charity work for Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau. Like, we just created a dynasty and handed a majority to a good looking rich kid from political royalty, and now it's all "2 NANNIES 2 MANY!" as if we expected them to live just like us or something, it just feels kind of like a manufactured issue
posted by Hoopo at 12:43 PM on May 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Hoopo at 12:43 PM on May 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
Well, for FEMALE spouses, at least. It doesn't seem to be an issue for Joachim Sauer, for example, although I don't follow German politics closely enough to know any details...
Yeah, one of the things I find really compelling about a Clinton presidency is watching how Bill Clinton will almost automatically redefine the role of First Spouse. Will he have to give a cookie recipe?
and if he does, will it have bacon in it?
posted by Mchelly at 12:50 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, one of the things I find really compelling about a Clinton presidency is watching how Bill Clinton will almost automatically redefine the role of First Spouse. Will he have to give a cookie recipe?
and if he does, will it have bacon in it?
posted by Mchelly at 12:50 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
What a fucking bowl of nothing. The costs of Harper's security detail doubled to almost $20 million over his time as PM which tied into speculation that the Harpers separated, but decided to not get divorced for the sake of the constituents. I doubt some assistance for someone trying to do something positive and make the best out of a frankly can't-win position would cost that much.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:50 PM on May 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:50 PM on May 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
speculation that the Harpers separated, but decided to not get divorced for the sake of the constituents.
I'm still kinda sorta waiting for that to happen, not that I have any real information on those juicy, juicy rumors. And of course, this is totally no-one's business but theirs -- I'd just love to see how the party base reacts, because I am a small and petty man.
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:57 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm still kinda sorta waiting for that to happen, not that I have any real information on those juicy, juicy rumors. And of course, this is totally no-one's business but theirs -- I'd just love to see how the party base reacts, because I am a small and petty man.
posted by Capt. Renault at 12:57 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
So she's not in touch with ordinary women's struggles? Well she's the wife of a world leader, so she' s not an ordinary woman. Fame in itself creates all sorts of extra labour, and anyways she wants to devote her time to charity work. What's she supposed to do, stay at home taking care of the kids? It's so hypocritical of Niki Ashton to say this.
posted by winterportage at 12:58 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by winterportage at 12:58 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
What a fucking bowl of nothing. The costs of Harper's security detail doubled to almost $20 million over his time as PM which tied into speculation that the Harpers separated, but decided to not get divorced for the sake of the constituents.
That the Harpers are separated is a known thing in CanPoli circles but is considered mostly irrelevant as a matter of public interest, so news media don't talk about it and as a matter of courtesy politicians don't touch it.
Ms. Trudeau's situation is weird because yeah, there's no formal role for spouses, but if the demand is there? Obviously she needs the help. But yes, the fact that her childcare is subsidized when it's a known issue for Canadians and was part of contending election platforms matters.
I think the bitterest pill to swallow for PM logistics is that 24 Sussex is a garbage pile that Trudeau couldn't move into. Any attempt to fix it will summon forth much competitive posturing about spending. But it's a garbage pile.
posted by mobunited at 12:58 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
That the Harpers are separated is a known thing in CanPoli circles but is considered mostly irrelevant as a matter of public interest, so news media don't talk about it and as a matter of courtesy politicians don't touch it.
Ms. Trudeau's situation is weird because yeah, there's no formal role for spouses, but if the demand is there? Obviously she needs the help. But yes, the fact that her childcare is subsidized when it's a known issue for Canadians and was part of contending election platforms matters.
I think the bitterest pill to swallow for PM logistics is that 24 Sussex is a garbage pile that Trudeau couldn't move into. Any attempt to fix it will summon forth much competitive posturing about spending. But it's a garbage pile.
posted by mobunited at 12:58 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
all the Harper supporters I know seem to think the PM's wife should live in the shadows, clutching her brood of conservative man-child/Deep One eggs, and lunging at those that come near the lair.
posted by benzenedream at 1:02 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 1:02 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
It would look better on her (to me, anyway) if she was lobbying for universal daycare for all of us instead.
See, that would be an overstep into politics, as far as I'm concerned. Michelle Obama has threaded the needle pretty expertly (modulo the usual right wing noise machine nonsense) with the causes she's championed: getting active, eating healthy, looking after veterans. They are broadly non-political issues. While childcare shouldn't be political, it is, and is a major plank of the NDP platform. So for me, it would be totally inappropriate for her to lobby for that in a way that supporting charities isn't.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:07 PM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
See, that would be an overstep into politics, as far as I'm concerned. Michelle Obama has threaded the needle pretty expertly (modulo the usual right wing noise machine nonsense) with the causes she's championed: getting active, eating healthy, looking after veterans. They are broadly non-political issues. While childcare shouldn't be political, it is, and is a major plank of the NDP platform. So for me, it would be totally inappropriate for her to lobby for that in a way that supporting charities isn't.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:07 PM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
These expectations are placed primarily, as per usual, upon women, and pretending they don't exist by saying "well it's not a real job because i think it shouldn't be a real job" will do absolutely nothing to make things better for any woman anywhere.
This. There's always an uproar when women request the resources required to fulfil their job role, and now Mrs. Trudeau is asking for 15 cents to fulfil her job role and of course everyone is saying she doesn't need what she says she needs, or she should stay home in seclusion as modesty befits, or she should continue in her old job with no thought of promotion or whatever TF people think up to keep women in their place.
If Mrs. PM can't ask for what she needs, it doesn't bode well for the rest of us, since there also isn't a correct way for a woman to exist in private.
posted by tel3path at 1:14 PM on May 16, 2016 [21 favorites]
This. There's always an uproar when women request the resources required to fulfil their job role, and now Mrs. Trudeau is asking for 15 cents to fulfil her job role and of course everyone is saying she doesn't need what she says she needs, or she should stay home in seclusion as modesty befits, or she should continue in her old job with no thought of promotion or whatever TF people think up to keep women in their place.
If Mrs. PM can't ask for what she needs, it doesn't bode well for the rest of us, since there also isn't a correct way for a woman to exist in private.
posted by tel3path at 1:14 PM on May 16, 2016 [21 favorites]
US First Ladies seem to have a staff of 16-24.
posted by Phersu at 1:14 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Phersu at 1:14 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Regarding political husbands: First Gentlemen of US states with female governors have served in the traditional role -- some keeping their other jobs, some not, as the wives do -- and had the hired staff that goes with the office of First Lady/Gent for that state. And yes, Todd Palin, oil-rig roughneck, hosted the traditional ladies' teas. And, yes, Todd Palin had to take leaves of absences from his paid employment to avoid conflicts of interest and to be a full-time parent when Sarah was governor. Jennifer Granholm's husband (Michigan) had to shut down his consulting business to be a full-time First Gent to avoid conflicts of interest and be a full-time dad, and he took on all the work of a traditional First Lady although he admitted to finding the menus-and-decorating parts boring. Michael Haley (SC) left private employment and serves full-time in the SC National Guard, as well as doing historic preservation work.
The other thing that really bugs me about this is that by saying "the PM's family shouldn't have taxpayer-funded nannies and staff," what you're really saying is "we prefer only certain types of people run for this office: the independently wealthy and the unmarried. If you have the messy obligations of a spouse and children, you're not welcome here." Which seems a lot less feminist to me than supporting many different kinds of families and individuals to expand the ability of more people to be involved in politics at the national level.
She's asking for a smaller staff than the First Lady of my state has, and SHE'S a billionaire who could freaking afford to hire her own, does no international travel in her role, and has no children at home, AND my state is on the verge of bankruptcy because she's married to an idiot, and nobody begrudges her her staff because she has to do a lot of appearances on behalf of the state! (And she did keep her day job, although it's totally a billionaire socialite job.) It seems so petty to say "we expect you to be a globe-trotting PM's wife who raises Canada's international profile, but we're going to bitch about you having kids who need care and the demands of the job being complex enough to require a staff."
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:15 PM on May 16, 2016 [64 favorites]
The other thing that really bugs me about this is that by saying "the PM's family shouldn't have taxpayer-funded nannies and staff," what you're really saying is "we prefer only certain types of people run for this office: the independently wealthy and the unmarried. If you have the messy obligations of a spouse and children, you're not welcome here." Which seems a lot less feminist to me than supporting many different kinds of families and individuals to expand the ability of more people to be involved in politics at the national level.
She's asking for a smaller staff than the First Lady of my state has, and SHE'S a billionaire who could freaking afford to hire her own, does no international travel in her role, and has no children at home, AND my state is on the verge of bankruptcy because she's married to an idiot, and nobody begrudges her her staff because she has to do a lot of appearances on behalf of the state! (And she did keep her day job, although it's totally a billionaire socialite job.) It seems so petty to say "we expect you to be a globe-trotting PM's wife who raises Canada's international profile, but we're going to bitch about you having kids who need care and the demands of the job being complex enough to require a staff."
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:15 PM on May 16, 2016 [64 favorites]
Well, for FEMALE spouses, at least.
On the other hand, the press tore into my MP and her husband for his work. I'd have to say he probably could have timed the whole "getting back into lobbying" thing better.
posted by Hoopo at 1:22 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, the press tore into my MP and her husband for his work. I'd have to say he probably could have timed the whole "getting back into lobbying" thing better.
posted by Hoopo at 1:22 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
As an American, I'm shocked that she's only had one staff person up until now. Our First Ladies typically have ~20 people working for their office. As long as First Spouses are expected to do stuff for their countries then of course they should have adequate staff to help them.
posted by Jacqueline at 1:23 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by Jacqueline at 1:23 PM on May 16, 2016
Our First Ladies typically have ~20 people working for their office.
I expect it's more like 200. And what a wonderful political system you have.
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:27 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I expect it's more like 200. And what a wonderful political system you have.
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:27 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jesus H Christ. When my kids were two our household had a paid full time staff of one. Hell there are software execs at my kids' entirely normal school who have two people paid to pick up the loose ends when you have a job that can suddenly without warning demand that you work 80 hours in a week. Not defending this way of life, but why is it so hard to think of this as anything other than a very reasonable request.
Oh, and Canadians are so damn quaint. Your prime minister is making an almost trivial request on behalf of his family's well being. Do you honestly think such a well connected person can't find Other Ways of getting what they feel they need?
I'll bet the people of the Phillipines wish they'd just bought Imelda the damn shoes themselves.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 1:34 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh, and Canadians are so damn quaint. Your prime minister is making an almost trivial request on behalf of his family's well being. Do you honestly think such a well connected person can't find Other Ways of getting what they feel they need?
I'll bet the people of the Phillipines wish they'd just bought Imelda the damn shoes themselves.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 1:34 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think this would be a good opportunity for Parliament to decide what roll the spouse of the PM should have.
I don't think Parliament should get involved in deciding what kind of roll Grégoire Trudeau has. Surely the woman should have the right to choose her own roll, be it a barm, bap, bublik, cloverleaf, concha, kaiser, or onion, without interference from anyone.
posted by orange swan at 1:35 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
I don't think Parliament should get involved in deciding what kind of roll Grégoire Trudeau has. Surely the woman should have the right to choose her own roll, be it a barm, bap, bublik, cloverleaf, concha, kaiser, or onion, without interference from anyone.
posted by orange swan at 1:35 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Pfft! Qu'elle mange de la brioche!
posted by tel3path at 1:37 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tel3path at 1:37 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
And what a wonderful political system you have.
Well, we've taken a shine to it.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:38 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, we've taken a shine to it.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:38 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm still kinda sorta waiting for that to happen, not that I have any real information on those juicy, juicy rumors. And of course, this is totally no-one's business but theirs -- I'd just love to see how the party base reacts, because I am a small and petty man.
If your juicy, juicy rumors are the same juicy, juicy rumors I have heard, then yes I want to see the reaction too. But the bigger part of me actually respects the decision to not report it, because in all honesty, what does it matter to anyone outside of Harper's family? Privacy. It's important.
posted by nubs at 1:39 PM on May 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
If your juicy, juicy rumors are the same juicy, juicy rumors I have heard, then yes I want to see the reaction too. But the bigger part of me actually respects the decision to not report it, because in all honesty, what does it matter to anyone outside of Harper's family? Privacy. It's important.
posted by nubs at 1:39 PM on May 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
Hell there are software execs at my kids' entirely normal school who have two people paid to pick up the loose ends when you have a job that can suddenly without warning demand that you work 80 hours in a week.
And the state pays for it?
Why can't politicians ever stick their hands in their own pockets for anything? Are people on this thread honestly suggesting that whatever the Prime Minister of fucking Canada gets paid is not sufficient to hire a few extra people so they can do more super-important networking dinners?
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:39 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
And the state pays for it?
Why can't politicians ever stick their hands in their own pockets for anything? Are people on this thread honestly suggesting that whatever the Prime Minister of fucking Canada gets paid is not sufficient to hire a few extra people so they can do more super-important networking dinners?
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:39 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Justin Trudeau is the prime minister, the topic is about his wife.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:42 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:42 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think Parliament should get involved in deciding what kind of roll Grégoire Trudeau has. Surely the woman should have the right to choose her own roll, be it a barm, bap, bublik, cloverleaf, concha, Kaiser or onion, without interference from anyone.
When its taxpayers money involved, the government does have a role.
Look, I don't have a problem with her having a support staff to help with official government duties (going to state dinners, etc), nor even have a problem with two (!) nannies to help with her children. But hiring a 2nd helper on top of that to help with her extra-government activities (even if it is wonderful, wonderful charity work) isn't something the government should pay for.
posted by el io at 1:43 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
When its taxpayers money involved, the government does have a role.
Look, I don't have a problem with her having a support staff to help with official government duties (going to state dinners, etc), nor even have a problem with two (!) nannies to help with her children. But hiring a 2nd helper on top of that to help with her extra-government activities (even if it is wonderful, wonderful charity work) isn't something the government should pay for.
posted by el io at 1:43 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Are people on this thread honestly suggesting that whatever the Prime Minister of fucking Canada gets paid is not sufficient to hire a few extra people so they can do more super-important networking dinners?
The prime minister of Canada is paid $170,400 per year. So yes, I am honestly suggesting that hiring even a few staffers would put a big hole in that. The prime minister's spouse is paid nothing at all, and deserves to at least get the resources it takes to manage the extra demands on her time. The single task of managing all the emails and phone calls she gets could probably easily keep one person busy for 40 hours a week.
posted by orange swan at 1:43 PM on May 16, 2016 [33 favorites]
The prime minister of Canada is paid $170,400 per year. So yes, I am honestly suggesting that hiring even a few staffers would put a big hole in that. The prime minister's spouse is paid nothing at all, and deserves to at least get the resources it takes to manage the extra demands on her time. The single task of managing all the emails and phone calls she gets could probably easily keep one person busy for 40 hours a week.
posted by orange swan at 1:43 PM on May 16, 2016 [33 favorites]
When its taxpayers money involved, the government does have a role.
This isn't new behaviour. Please learn about this practice.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:44 PM on May 16, 2016
This isn't new behaviour. Please learn about this practice.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:44 PM on May 16, 2016
Surely the woman should have the right to choose her own roll
A Montreal bagel surely.
posted by Kabanos at 1:45 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
A Montreal bagel surely.
posted by Kabanos at 1:45 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Are people on this thread honestly suggesting that whatever the Prime Minister of fucking Canada gets paid is not sufficient to hire a few extra people so they can do more super-important networking dinners?
I think people are suggesting that the fucking Dominion of Canada can scrounge the fucking change to hire a few more fucking staff for the fucking Prime Minister's fucking spouse. But what do I know, I'm a fucking American.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:46 PM on May 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
I think people are suggesting that the fucking Dominion of Canada can scrounge the fucking change to hire a few more fucking staff for the fucking Prime Minister's fucking spouse. But what do I know, I'm a fucking American.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:46 PM on May 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
Why can't politicians ever stick their hands in their own pockets for anything?
what she's chosen to do in her non-official public role is literally tons of charity work, it feels pretty weird complaining that she isn't paying for more of it out of pocket
posted by Hoopo at 1:47 PM on May 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
what she's chosen to do in her non-official public role is literally tons of charity work, it feels pretty weird complaining that she isn't paying for more of it out of pocket
posted by Hoopo at 1:47 PM on May 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
hire a few more fucking staff for the fucking Prime Minister's fucking spouse.
He can pay.
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:50 PM on May 16, 2016
He can pay.
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:50 PM on May 16, 2016
He can pay.
Ah, you want him to pay! You should write him a letter.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:51 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ah, you want him to pay! You should write him a letter.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:51 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nah, as a Canadian, I'll allow it. We spend more on dumber shit than this.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:52 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:52 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
He'd have to be paying them awfully low wages to manage it. That'd look good, I'm sure.
posted by tel3path at 1:52 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tel3path at 1:52 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Mod note: Maybe let's draw the temp down a little in here in general, yeah?
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:54 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:54 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Are people on this thread honestly suggesting that whatever the Prime Minister of fucking Canada gets paid is not sufficient to hire a few extra people
I agree, Coda Tronca, it would be nice to see politicans pay their own way. But lots of folks get paid a whole lot more than the PM's $341,000 (about $265,000 US). Admittedly, a good deal of that money is tax-free, and there are tons of benefits and a great pension plan on top of that, but it still doesn't strike me as an outrageous sum for the PM's job. At least not enough to support a staff with benefits and pension.
posted by angiep at 1:55 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I agree, Coda Tronca, it would be nice to see politicans pay their own way. But lots of folks get paid a whole lot more than the PM's $341,000 (about $265,000 US). Admittedly, a good deal of that money is tax-free, and there are tons of benefits and a great pension plan on top of that, but it still doesn't strike me as an outrageous sum for the PM's job. At least not enough to support a staff with benefits and pension.
posted by angiep at 1:55 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Their nannies and one other are already paid for by the people they said they wanted to serve. Like all politicians, they just want more once the big cars and the 'charity dinners' and the status kicks in.
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:55 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Coda Tronca at 1:55 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
But the bigger part of me actually respects the decision to not report it, because in all honesty, what does it matter to anyone outside of Harper's family? Privacy. It's important.
Absolutely. No doubt about it. My personal problem is that I had to have that bigger part surgically removed in order to graduate law school, and I'm only left with the shallow, vindictive parts, and they've gone unsatisfied to date. They're hungry still.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:55 PM on May 16, 2016
Absolutely. No doubt about it. My personal problem is that I had to have that bigger part surgically removed in order to graduate law school, and I'm only left with the shallow, vindictive parts, and they've gone unsatisfied to date. They're hungry still.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:55 PM on May 16, 2016
The problem, of course, is Gregoire-Trudeau is in a no-win situation. Were she to do that which the press (and likely most of the people here savaging Gregoire-Trudeau for asking for additional help) demand and step back from public life, she would probably be criticized for her lack of a role in the public life of Canada and for setting a poor example for young women. Instead, she's criticized for exposing that bitter truth that there simply aren't enough hours in the day to handle childcare and a career without assistance. All of which has a general basis in simple, pervasive, disgusting sexism.
Have you seen how holding office ages people? Obama's hair, Bush's generally wizening. The demands on their time are simply enormous. I imagine the same is true for the spouse, and three kids is a massive responsibility. And I think you'll find that even a salary of $341k Canadian will disappear rather quickly with hiring support, when you factor in wages and benefits. And yes, I am suggesting that the Prime Minister of fucking Canada does not get paid enough to hire a few extra people so they can do more super-important networking dinners. If you expect that high end staff like that would make high-end money, you're looking at eating up that prime minister's salary in one to two employees.
posted by Existential Dread at 2:01 PM on May 16, 2016 [24 favorites]
Have you seen how holding office ages people? Obama's hair, Bush's generally wizening. The demands on their time are simply enormous. I imagine the same is true for the spouse, and three kids is a massive responsibility. And I think you'll find that even a salary of $341k Canadian will disappear rather quickly with hiring support, when you factor in wages and benefits. And yes, I am suggesting that the Prime Minister of fucking Canada does not get paid enough to hire a few extra people so they can do more super-important networking dinners. If you expect that high end staff like that would make high-end money, you're looking at eating up that prime minister's salary in one to two employees.
posted by Existential Dread at 2:01 PM on May 16, 2016 [24 favorites]
1. Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau cannot continue to work in her previous occupation while her husband is PM. She's a journalist. It doesn't matter if she's an entertainment reporter, journalists work for news organisations, and it's totally wrong for a news organisation employ the spouse of the head of government. For better or for worse, she surrendered her right to work in her profession when parliament selected her husband as PM.
2. There's no particular reason she shouldn't be involved in politics. Grégoire-Trudeau is not the spouse of a head of state; she's a private citizen. If she wants to have a political voice, even lobby her husband, there's nothing wrong with that. If she did so for pay, I bet it would be violating all kinds of rules, but there's no reason she shouldn't have political opinions in private or public.
4. The PM isn't paid enough to afford this by himself. Prime ministers are paid in the neighbourhood of 300K. Ok, so that's a lot of money, far more than I would ever expect to make and enough to qualify him as a pretty rich dude. But hiring several assistants out of pocket would be a significant financial burden.
In my view, I don't see a problem with allowing Grégoire-Trudeau to have a semi-official public role doing charity work or whatnot. She's surrendered her career so that her husband can be PM; that's a significant sacrifice. She's also required to suffer the indignities of a security detail, etc, for national interest reasons. Spending a small amount to convert this cloistered life into one useful to the nation, beneficial to society, and reflective of her talents doesn't strike me as wrong. Alternately, she could dedicate herself to party-political work, at which point the party should shoulder that cost. But if she wants to do non-partisan work, then whatevs -- think of it as a spousal hire.
posted by Dreadnought at 2:02 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
2. There's no particular reason she shouldn't be involved in politics. Grégoire-Trudeau is not the spouse of a head of state; she's a private citizen. If she wants to have a political voice, even lobby her husband, there's nothing wrong with that. If she did so for pay, I bet it would be violating all kinds of rules, but there's no reason she shouldn't have political opinions in private or public.
4. The PM isn't paid enough to afford this by himself. Prime ministers are paid in the neighbourhood of 300K. Ok, so that's a lot of money, far more than I would ever expect to make and enough to qualify him as a pretty rich dude. But hiring several assistants out of pocket would be a significant financial burden.
In my view, I don't see a problem with allowing Grégoire-Trudeau to have a semi-official public role doing charity work or whatnot. She's surrendered her career so that her husband can be PM; that's a significant sacrifice. She's also required to suffer the indignities of a security detail, etc, for national interest reasons. Spending a small amount to convert this cloistered life into one useful to the nation, beneficial to society, and reflective of her talents doesn't strike me as wrong. Alternately, she could dedicate herself to party-political work, at which point the party should shoulder that cost. But if she wants to do non-partisan work, then whatevs -- think of it as a spousal hire.
posted by Dreadnought at 2:02 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Well I for one still can't get over the fact that the Prime Minister is a paid position.
posted by mazola at 2:04 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mazola at 2:04 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Eyebrows McGee: Regarding political husbands: First Gentlemen of US states with female governors have served in the traditional role -- some keeping their other jobs, some not, as the wives do -- and had the hired staff that goes with the office of First Lady/Gent for that state.
It's an interesting thing about American politics that your founders figured you always needed one guy to be an elected royal, with all the sorts of perks and expectations that go with an office like that. It's like they didn't want to be embarrassed or lose legitimacy by not being able to equal the pomp of European royalty. So you have Heads of State and First Families and all the ceremony that goes with that.
We've already got royalty. Their kids already have dozens (hundreds?) of staff. They're in Europe. (For now, anyway, what with all the Brexit talk.)
Our Prime Minister is the leader of the House of Commons. The Commons - us people of the dirt. He makes $300K+/year, not $170K. An additional $100K-ish goes to the nannies. And in one way this is about Sophie, but most of the support requested so far is for their kids, which means it's also about him. He is - or should be - an equal partner in the raising of his children. And he should be able to do that on $400K/year, rent-free.
There are bigger, worse problems. That's the dirt farmer in me talking.
posted by clawsoon at 2:05 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's an interesting thing about American politics that your founders figured you always needed one guy to be an elected royal, with all the sorts of perks and expectations that go with an office like that. It's like they didn't want to be embarrassed or lose legitimacy by not being able to equal the pomp of European royalty. So you have Heads of State and First Families and all the ceremony that goes with that.
We've already got royalty. Their kids already have dozens (hundreds?) of staff. They're in Europe. (For now, anyway, what with all the Brexit talk.)
Our Prime Minister is the leader of the House of Commons. The Commons - us people of the dirt. He makes $300K+/year, not $170K. An additional $100K-ish goes to the nannies. And in one way this is about Sophie, but most of the support requested so far is for their kids, which means it's also about him. He is - or should be - an equal partner in the raising of his children. And he should be able to do that on $400K/year, rent-free.
There are bigger, worse problems. That's the dirt farmer in me talking.
posted by clawsoon at 2:05 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think the leader of Canada should have staff paid for by the people of Canada. The office deserves some dignity, and not stupid, cheap nickle-and-dimeing. We are a rich, 1st world nation. The sort of cheap bastard attitude like I see being voiced here is the reason 24 Sussex is an un-livable garbage pile shit heap, and the reason the Parliament buildings were pretty well crumbling before they finally got around to repairing them.
posted by fimbulvetr at 2:05 PM on May 16, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by fimbulvetr at 2:05 PM on May 16, 2016 [21 favorites]
I'm wondering, is there some history here, some previous incidents in Canadian history in regards to the role? Because people seem to be flipping out (not just here) and getting angry all out of proportion to the request. Just about everywhere else, it's recognized that the First Spouse continuing to work privately is just about impossible for logistical and ethical reasons, and that if they are expected to accompany the prime minister to at least some social functions and be a host that they should have some staff for that.
Maybe Canada is different and she wouldn't be criticized if she never attended public or private functions and never greeted dignitaries from abroad, but I kind of doubt it. And I absolutely don't believe that she wouldn't be ripped apart the moment her work or her employers had anything that touched on the government or the opposition.
Mostly it seems like the kind of no-win situation that people love to put women in. Get wrecked if she goes on as a private citizen, get wrecked if she tries to do useful things as a public figure. And while it's perfectly reasonable to disagree, the level of _rage_ just seems disproportionate.
posted by tavella at 2:06 PM on May 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
Maybe Canada is different and she wouldn't be criticized if she never attended public or private functions and never greeted dignitaries from abroad, but I kind of doubt it. And I absolutely don't believe that she wouldn't be ripped apart the moment her work or her employers had anything that touched on the government or the opposition.
Mostly it seems like the kind of no-win situation that people love to put women in. Get wrecked if she goes on as a private citizen, get wrecked if she tries to do useful things as a public figure. And while it's perfectly reasonable to disagree, the level of _rage_ just seems disproportionate.
posted by tavella at 2:06 PM on May 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
Canadians are cheap. And extremely self-righteous about their cheapness. We are the Uncle Scrooge McDuck of nations. It is like we have stereo-typical cartoon Scotsman burned into our national composition. We would rather watch things crumble and rust then appear to spend an unwarranted dime. That is why there is all of this out-of-proportion brew-ha-ha.
posted by fimbulvetr at 2:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by fimbulvetr at 2:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
So I get she had to add Trudeau to her social name many years after the marriage for political purposes (I suspect she didn't change it legally), but she is neither Ms. nor Mrs. Trudeau, perhaps at least give her the respect of using her name.
posted by jeather at 2:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by jeather at 2:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Like all politicians, they just want more once the big cars and the 'charity dinners' and the status kicks in.
looks like those clowns in the PMO did it again, what a bunch of clowns
posted by Hoopo at 2:12 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
looks like those clowns in the PMO did it again, what a bunch of clowns
posted by Hoopo at 2:12 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
It would really make a great statement internationally if Canada decided that being a PM's wife meant giving up your own career and personal life to either live in seclusion or do the work of 4 people for no pay. That would set an example for every nation about the status of women in Canadian society. The world will look upon us and proclaim "A fish stinks from the head!"/"Un poisson pue de la tête!"
posted by tel3path at 2:13 PM on May 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by tel3path at 2:13 PM on May 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
Doesn't this also connect to current issue of how society undervalues what is traditionally seen as women's work ? Whether it's being a hostess, child rearing, soft diplomacy, or charitable work. I think it would be a good example for the government to show that this kind of work does have important value to society by paying for this work to be done and paying well.
posted by FJT at 2:16 PM on May 16, 2016 [33 favorites]
posted by FJT at 2:16 PM on May 16, 2016 [33 favorites]
fimbulvetr: Canadians are cheap. And extremely self-righteous about their cheapness. We are the Uncle Scrooge McDuck of nations.
That we are, that we are.
After I turned down a request from a random friendly Irishman for $5 or $10 after he had spun an entertaining tale on the streetcar, he turned sour and spit out, "Fucking Canadians. You're as bad as the English!"
posted by clawsoon at 2:18 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
That we are, that we are.
After I turned down a request from a random friendly Irishman for $5 or $10 after he had spun an entertaining tale on the streetcar, he turned sour and spit out, "Fucking Canadians. You're as bad as the English!"
posted by clawsoon at 2:18 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nope not buying it – I do not expect the PM's wife to function in a public capacity, she's not the FLOTUS for heaven sake's. And I reject the hacking of the tall poppy theory.
Just quit trying to make Sophie happen OK? She's not going to happen.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 2:19 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Just quit trying to make Sophie happen OK? She's not going to happen.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 2:19 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think the leader of Canada should have staff paid for by the people of Canada. The office deserves some dignity
The Prime Minister himself deserves dignity because he is a person. The office, however, deserves no dignity whatsoever. There are occasions when we need need dignity, and for that we have a Queen, a GG, and a bevy of princes and princesses. The premiership is a powerful political office: when people grasp power with one hand, they should be expected to grasp humility with the other.
posted by Dreadnought at 2:19 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Prime Minister himself deserves dignity because he is a person. The office, however, deserves no dignity whatsoever. There are occasions when we need need dignity, and for that we have a Queen, a GG, and a bevy of princes and princesses. The premiership is a powerful political office: when people grasp power with one hand, they should be expected to grasp humility with the other.
posted by Dreadnought at 2:19 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
If your juicy, juicy rumors are the same juicy, juicy rumors I have heard, then yes I want to see the reaction too. But the bigger part of me actually respects the decision to not report it, because in all honesty, what does it matter to anyone outside of Harper's family? Privacy. It's important.
Yeah, true. And I totally respect that, and my bigger part agrees. My (much) smaller part wants him eating cans of beans for dinner, for the rest of his life, and wants to see that, and wants to see him forget to rinse out the cans, stop caring about rinsing out the cans, so his recycling box becomes a permanent home for flies. (that is a part I'm not proud of) And all of me want to see her freeeeeee
posted by cotton dress sock at 2:20 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, true. And I totally respect that, and my bigger part agrees. My (much) smaller part wants him eating cans of beans for dinner, for the rest of his life, and wants to see that, and wants to see him forget to rinse out the cans, stop caring about rinsing out the cans, so his recycling box becomes a permanent home for flies. (that is a part I'm not proud of) And all of me want to see her freeeeeee
posted by cotton dress sock at 2:20 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I started with your second paragraph, cotton dress sock, and thought to myself... damn, that's harsh, asking for two nannies doesn't call for that kind of reaction!
posted by clawsoon at 2:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 2:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think you earn respect and dignity by holding an attitude to money and expenses that is connected to the lives of the people you serve. See: Jeremy Corbyn.
posted by Coda Tronca at 2:24 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by Coda Tronca at 2:24 PM on May 16, 2016
I'm pretty sure the Queen and the various princes and princesses don't turn up on the regular in Canada to host state dinners on behalf of Canada. In fact, they get hosted and feted when they come, from what I can see. It may be that the GG handles, or at least could, all ceremonial and hosting and social occasions, but it seems quite silly to claim that the non-resident Royal Family actually functions as such.
posted by tavella at 2:26 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tavella at 2:26 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wasn't aware the Queen came over to Canada to attend state dinners. Or perhaps she should have been available as a stand-in for when Justin and Sophie came to the White House a couple months back?
posted by Existential Dread at 2:27 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Existential Dread at 2:27 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Our Prime Minister is the leader of the House of Commons. "
Yeah, and I know you don't have the Imperial Presidency issues we have south of the border, but the spouse of the PM of the UK gets a lot of perks on the government dime (uh ... sixpence). Cherie Blair traveled to a LOT of state events and got a lot of press coverage (because they were young and also had a baby while in office, which is press catnip). Samantha Cameron has a taxpayer-paid staff to organize her semi-official appearances as the PM's wife. Even the PM of Iceland's spouse travels on the government dime to make official appearances, and that's a country of just 300,000 where everyone knows everyone in Parliament and it's pretty informal -- it caused a bit of a (mostly-positive) press sensation when Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, the first openly lesbian head of government, brought her then-partner now-wife Jónína Leósdóttir on the typical government jaunts in the spousal role. It's just pretty unavoidable for the spouse to have to take on a semi-official role no matter how small and informal the country, even if you aren't saddled with a presidency.
(From my casual fascination with state visits, primarily because I like the clothes, it seems to me that modern democracies put more demands on head-of-governments' spouses, possibly because of their free presses and interest in high-achieving women, than more traditional countries do, where it's still possible for a man to serve in a high government role without his family ever being mentioned in the press because they're considered unimportant. Not unusual for the PM or president of a developing country to travel without a spouse, but First World spouses are much more often expected to show up and known by the press. I think it's a tough dynamic for a modern, wealthy, open country to avoid, despite best intentions. Putin can travel without a spouse, but the press follows poor Joachim Sauer around and everyone expects Samantha Cameron to turn up where her husband does. And even the publicity-shy Sauer has to go to state dinners abroad.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:28 PM on May 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
Yeah, and I know you don't have the Imperial Presidency issues we have south of the border, but the spouse of the PM of the UK gets a lot of perks on the government dime (uh ... sixpence). Cherie Blair traveled to a LOT of state events and got a lot of press coverage (because they were young and also had a baby while in office, which is press catnip). Samantha Cameron has a taxpayer-paid staff to organize her semi-official appearances as the PM's wife. Even the PM of Iceland's spouse travels on the government dime to make official appearances, and that's a country of just 300,000 where everyone knows everyone in Parliament and it's pretty informal -- it caused a bit of a (mostly-positive) press sensation when Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, the first openly lesbian head of government, brought her then-partner now-wife Jónína Leósdóttir on the typical government jaunts in the spousal role. It's just pretty unavoidable for the spouse to have to take on a semi-official role no matter how small and informal the country, even if you aren't saddled with a presidency.
(From my casual fascination with state visits, primarily because I like the clothes, it seems to me that modern democracies put more demands on head-of-governments' spouses, possibly because of their free presses and interest in high-achieving women, than more traditional countries do, where it's still possible for a man to serve in a high government role without his family ever being mentioned in the press because they're considered unimportant. Not unusual for the PM or president of a developing country to travel without a spouse, but First World spouses are much more often expected to show up and known by the press. I think it's a tough dynamic for a modern, wealthy, open country to avoid, despite best intentions. Putin can travel without a spouse, but the press follows poor Joachim Sauer around and everyone expects Samantha Cameron to turn up where her husband does. And even the publicity-shy Sauer has to go to state dinners abroad.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:28 PM on May 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
I'm not sure how much I actually meant that, clawsoon, just got carried away for a sec
posted by cotton dress sock at 2:34 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cotton dress sock at 2:34 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
It may be that the GG handles, or at least could, all ceremonial and hosting and social occasions, but it seems quite silly to claim that the non-resident Royal Family actually functions as such.
Yeah, the GG does most of the greeting/dining/parading stuff. In doing so they act as the head of state in place of Her Maj. I suppose the choice of who does this, when it comes to foreign visitors, depends on what our foreign policy people want to say: do we project dignity and solemnity (GG/royal) or the suggestion of political influence (the PM)
When it became possible to fly here with not so much fuss, the Queen started to come to Canada every couple of years or so, doing lots of her usual ceremonial work: opening things and being photographed next to things. Sadly, she's too frail now, at ninety. The various prince*s come surprisingly often, although its usually not interesting enough to hit the news. They do a lot of military ceremonies that military people know/really care about, but pretty much nobody else notices.
posted by Dreadnought at 2:44 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, the GG does most of the greeting/dining/parading stuff. In doing so they act as the head of state in place of Her Maj. I suppose the choice of who does this, when it comes to foreign visitors, depends on what our foreign policy people want to say: do we project dignity and solemnity (GG/royal) or the suggestion of political influence (the PM)
When it became possible to fly here with not so much fuss, the Queen started to come to Canada every couple of years or so, doing lots of her usual ceremonial work: opening things and being photographed next to things. Sadly, she's too frail now, at ninety. The various prince*s come surprisingly often, although its usually not interesting enough to hit the news. They do a lot of military ceremonies that military people know/really care about, but pretty much nobody else notices.
posted by Dreadnought at 2:44 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can understand wanting more staff, but adding to the request that the entire household, including all state visitors, pretend that it is still the Victorian era and discuss corsets 99% of the time during their visit--just can't get behind that nosireebob.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:45 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:45 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Becoming First Spouse looks like all the worst parts of being a celebrity, without having chosen it, and without getting paid for it (or building up your own career). Everyone thinks it's fun to wear sparkly things and go to parties, but always looking right, being in the right place, making conversation properly, is hard work. It's quite expensive. Your feet hurt and you are constantly in the spotlight, knowing there are not a few people rooting for you to screw it up. To this introvert, it sounds like hell. God forbid you drink too much, or forget someone's name, or trip, or have spinach in your teeth. You're all over the front pages next day.
Plus you also have to be there for your spouse. Not to mention also doing charity stuff and having a family.
And while some of the expenses are paid, if you weren't married to the guy you'd demand a hefty salary to do all that work and even then they'd probably not just have one person doing it.
It doesn't look at all fun to me, is what I'm saying.
Sure it's heteronormative and weird to make someone's spouse's work part of their job, but if we want that to change, making the current spouse suffer is not going to be the way to get there.
I feel nothing but sympathy for her, I would hate to have my professional life in limbo while I was trying to walk a high wire under a massive spotlight and have to look good the whole time. What a nightmare.
posted by emjaybee at 2:55 PM on May 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
Plus you also have to be there for your spouse. Not to mention also doing charity stuff and having a family.
And while some of the expenses are paid, if you weren't married to the guy you'd demand a hefty salary to do all that work and even then they'd probably not just have one person doing it.
It doesn't look at all fun to me, is what I'm saying.
Sure it's heteronormative and weird to make someone's spouse's work part of their job, but if we want that to change, making the current spouse suffer is not going to be the way to get there.
I feel nothing but sympathy for her, I would hate to have my professional life in limbo while I was trying to walk a high wire under a massive spotlight and have to look good the whole time. What a nightmare.
posted by emjaybee at 2:55 PM on May 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
There's a lot of talk of state dinners. I googled how often these happen, but with all the articles about the US state dinner for Canada I couldn't find anything about Canadian state dinners. So US state dinners appear to happen at most 3X per year and some years there are none (For recent presidents...Jimmy Carter was a real outlier). So it's not about state dinners. Obviously she doesn't need a staff to go to 3 dinners a year (and for the person who said there's more to it than showing up....of course there is...hopefully they hire an event planner for that. It's not ok to just throw this job on the somebody's spouse).
For those who asked if people would be ok with her just saying now to all those requests: Yes. I'd be fine with that. Though I would be annoyed with journalists if I knew she were doing that, because how the hell is "Charity: Our preferred speaker turned us down" news?
And related for those saying she'd be criticized for it if she were not going all this charitable work. That's an odd thing to say given that recent PM's spouses have not done this work and they have not been criticized for it. And again, how would we even know? That's not news.
For those saying "well obviously she IS expected to do it and so she should have support for that...". The phrase "expected to" is being used in two ways. Insofar as "people are asking her to" means "expected to" yes, she is expected to. But if being asked by many people do do something constitutes being "expected to" then why was not one granting me a staff when I asked if I would get a staff with public money if lots of people started asking me to speak at charity events? When I've been saying I don't think she should be "expected to" do all this stuff I mean that there should not be a cultural expectation that she do it or an institutionalized/quasi-legal expectation like the US president's spouse has.
She is currently not "expected" to do anything in that sense, but I think giving her a staff would create that expectation for her and it would be at strong risk carrying over to future PM's spouses. The result, besides it being inherently wrong to shove work on to someone just because their spouse has a particular job, would result either in future PMs' spouses being forced to take on roles they don't want or people choosing not to run for party leaderships because their spouses do not want this role or because they fear having the electorate evaluate their spouses as part of their voting calculus, just as it appears many US voters do (how yucky is it that US media does stories on potential future first ladies? pretty yucky IMO and just as offiensive as it would be if any of our bosses wanted to check out our spouses before hiring us).
And to those of you who pointed out that there are potential conflicts with her working in the media, I hadn't thought of that and you're obviously right. I mean maybe she could work for some magazine that doesn't cover law or politics or anything else, but good luck finding something that isn't owned by a larger media company that does all those things.
I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but I don't think that institutionalizing a first spouse role is it. It seems like there should be a solution in looking at other politicians' spouses. I mean the Finance Minister's spouse would have pretty much all the same conflicts, I think. So how do they do their jobs?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 3:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
For those who asked if people would be ok with her just saying now to all those requests: Yes. I'd be fine with that. Though I would be annoyed with journalists if I knew she were doing that, because how the hell is "Charity: Our preferred speaker turned us down" news?
And related for those saying she'd be criticized for it if she were not going all this charitable work. That's an odd thing to say given that recent PM's spouses have not done this work and they have not been criticized for it. And again, how would we even know? That's not news.
For those saying "well obviously she IS expected to do it and so she should have support for that...". The phrase "expected to" is being used in two ways. Insofar as "people are asking her to" means "expected to" yes, she is expected to. But if being asked by many people do do something constitutes being "expected to" then why was not one granting me a staff when I asked if I would get a staff with public money if lots of people started asking me to speak at charity events? When I've been saying I don't think she should be "expected to" do all this stuff I mean that there should not be a cultural expectation that she do it or an institutionalized/quasi-legal expectation like the US president's spouse has.
She is currently not "expected" to do anything in that sense, but I think giving her a staff would create that expectation for her and it would be at strong risk carrying over to future PM's spouses. The result, besides it being inherently wrong to shove work on to someone just because their spouse has a particular job, would result either in future PMs' spouses being forced to take on roles they don't want or people choosing not to run for party leaderships because their spouses do not want this role or because they fear having the electorate evaluate their spouses as part of their voting calculus, just as it appears many US voters do (how yucky is it that US media does stories on potential future first ladies? pretty yucky IMO and just as offiensive as it would be if any of our bosses wanted to check out our spouses before hiring us).
And to those of you who pointed out that there are potential conflicts with her working in the media, I hadn't thought of that and you're obviously right. I mean maybe she could work for some magazine that doesn't cover law or politics or anything else, but good luck finding something that isn't owned by a larger media company that does all those things.
I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but I don't think that institutionalizing a first spouse role is it. It seems like there should be a solution in looking at other politicians' spouses. I mean the Finance Minister's spouse would have pretty much all the same conflicts, I think. So how do they do their jobs?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 3:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
Our longest-serving Prime Minister was never married. It's hard to develop first-spousal traditions when there was a Canadian "first spouse" for only 5 months between 1921 and 1948. And Margaret Trudeau never was and never wanted to be Mrs. Perfect First Spouse Hostess, so that adds 1968 through 1984 (minus 9 months) without a traditional First Spouse. (Those 9 months were occupied by Maureen McTeer, something of a non-traditionalist herself.)
So, by necessity, we developed our state protocols and state dinners and state everything to not depend on spouses. Spouses have to figure out the role for themselves. At the provincial level, at least a couple of them keep working their own jobs. Most of the others have done one of two perfectly Canadian things: Kept quiet, or aped the American way of doing things.
posted by clawsoon at 3:13 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, by necessity, we developed our state protocols and state dinners and state everything to not depend on spouses. Spouses have to figure out the role for themselves. At the provincial level, at least a couple of them keep working their own jobs. Most of the others have done one of two perfectly Canadian things: Kept quiet, or aped the American way of doing things.
posted by clawsoon at 3:13 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Finance Minister's spouse isn't subject to the same demands as the spouse of the head of government. While, yes, the GG does the representation as our Head of State (and no that's not so much about 'what we want to say,' there are international norms and protocols for who greets whom and how and when; e.g. ambassadors are presented to the GG first and not the PM), they meet on the same level as other Heads of State: royalty, Presidents (where the Presidential position is separate--e.g. France, Israel, not the USA). And their spouses come along and are expected to be part of the team. The PM deals with other Heads of Government--and their spouse comes along.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:14 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:14 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
A lot of US commentators do not seem to viscerally understand how Parliamentary systems work. Ms Trudeau is not the first lady. There is no such position. She is the wife of the PM, a man whose position may be removed literally overnight by internal party politics. It wouldn't even take a vote of Parliament, unless there's something funny about the Canadian system. Consequently, Parliamentary systems traditionally apply the same sort of sharp division between "official" and "personal" expenses that the USA applies between Church and State.
I think things may have changed, but an episode of Yes, Prime Minister was devoted to Hacker's attempt to have the already-existing and already-staffed kitchen of No. 10 prepare lunch for him - note that they were already preparing lunch for themselves and the other staff of No. 10:
I think things may have changed, but an episode of Yes, Prime Minister was devoted to Hacker's attempt to have the already-existing and already-staffed kitchen of No. 10 prepare lunch for him - note that they were already preparing lunch for themselves and the other staff of No. 10:
Jim Hacker: You mean the German ambassador's lunch is government business, but mine isn't?posted by Joe in Australia at 3:17 PM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: That is so. Not just the German ambassador's, of course, any ambassador's.
Jim Hacker: Fine. Bernard, get the diary. On Monday I'll have lunch with the German ambassador. On Tuesday, with the French ambassador; on Wednesday, with the American ambassador. Oh, mustn't leave out the Commonwealth; on Thursday I'll have lunch with the New Zealand High Commissioner. How many countries are there in the UN?
Bernard Woolley: Well 158, Prime minister.
Jim Hacker: Good. That'll take up about six months; then we'll start round again.
Oh yeah, I guess Premier's spouses are the other good point of comparison.
Our longest-serving Prime Minister was never married.
Once you set up the expectation that you can and should shove work on to a woman, a single leader is no obstacle. When the U.S. has elected single presidents, they find other female relatives (sisters, daughters, neices, daughters-in-law) to put in the role. Here's the list of US first ladies. Sort on "Date married" and you can see ten first ladies that weren't even married to the president.
And their spouses come along and are expected to be part of the team.
My point is that they should go along if they want to but there should be no expectation that they do so. There's no reason why it's necessary that they be expected to do so.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 3:20 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Our longest-serving Prime Minister was never married.
Once you set up the expectation that you can and should shove work on to a woman, a single leader is no obstacle. When the U.S. has elected single presidents, they find other female relatives (sisters, daughters, neices, daughters-in-law) to put in the role. Here's the list of US first ladies. Sort on "Date married" and you can see ten first ladies that weren't even married to the president.
And their spouses come along and are expected to be part of the team.
My point is that they should go along if they want to but there should be no expectation that they do so. There's no reason why it's necessary that they be expected to do so.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 3:20 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's a simple question of economics: is the pro bono work done by Gregoire worth more or less than the cost of N assistants? And, what is the marginal utility of adding an N+1th assistant (how much more valuable does her work become)? I find it really hard to understand how anyone could value her work at less than three $40k/year assistants, unless it were motivated by partisan anger or misogyny.
All the other questions about what a first spouse should or should not do, or whether or not her work is an official duty are only relevant to the extent that there's a question about who should foot the bill. I'm 100% on-board with taxpayers footing the bill, given her work is in the public interest.
posted by simra at 3:20 PM on May 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
All the other questions about what a first spouse should or should not do, or whether or not her work is an official duty are only relevant to the extent that there's a question about who should foot the bill. I'm 100% on-board with taxpayers footing the bill, given her work is in the public interest.
posted by simra at 3:20 PM on May 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
would result either in future PMs' spouses being forced to take on roles they don't want or people choosing not to run for party leaderships because their spouses do not want this role or because they fear having the electorate evaluate their spouses as part of their voting calculus, just as it appears many US voters do (how yucky is it that US media does stories on potential future first ladies? pretty yucky IMO and just as offiensive as it would be if any of our bosses wanted to check out our spouses before hiring us).
It's been pointed out already that Mila Mulroney had a staff and a more pronounced role, and that did not seem to affect Aline Chretien, Sheila Martin, or Laureen Harper in terms of expectations from the public. I'm not sure there's a slippery slope here.
posted by Hoopo at 3:28 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's been pointed out already that Mila Mulroney had a staff and a more pronounced role, and that did not seem to affect Aline Chretien, Sheila Martin, or Laureen Harper in terms of expectations from the public. I'm not sure there's a slippery slope here.
posted by Hoopo at 3:28 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's a simple question of economics: is the pro bono work done by Gregoire worth more or less than the cost of N assistants? And, what is the marginal utility of adding an N+1th assistant (how much more valuable does her work become)? I find it really hard to understand how anyone could value her work at less than three $40k/year assistants, unless it were motivated by partisan anger or misogyny.
Again, would you apply this same standard to anyone else? If random person were being asked to do charity work for free and that work could generate donations in excess of the cost of two assistants, would you favour the assistants being hired from the public purse?
I also don't think it's fair to imply that anyone who is opposed to an institutionalized role for the PM's spouse doesn't value her work at $X. It's not about the value of her work. And it doesn't then follow that it's about misogyny or partisanship. It's precisely because I don't think women should be expected to do unpaid work that I object and though I didn't vote Liberal because I hated my local liberal candidate, I'm team Thank-God-He's-Not-Harper and perfectly happy with Trudeau as PM.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 3:29 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Again, would you apply this same standard to anyone else? If random person were being asked to do charity work for free and that work could generate donations in excess of the cost of two assistants, would you favour the assistants being hired from the public purse?
I also don't think it's fair to imply that anyone who is opposed to an institutionalized role for the PM's spouse doesn't value her work at $X. It's not about the value of her work. And it doesn't then follow that it's about misogyny or partisanship. It's precisely because I don't think women should be expected to do unpaid work that I object and though I didn't vote Liberal because I hated my local liberal candidate, I'm team Thank-God-He's-Not-Harper and perfectly happy with Trudeau as PM.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 3:29 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wonder if some sort of compromise could be worked out where a budget was allotted to fund the position using Canadian Tire money.
More seriously, though, I'm completely convinced that if the Trudeaus had really wanted funding for a staff to assist Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau in coordinating her pseudo-state-duties the way to get it would have been to make a public statement about how Canada, as a smaller nation can't afford, and shouldn't expect, to fund the sort of resources that the first spouses of UK and US leaders receive. Maybe I overestimate Canadian insecurity but I'd bet pretty heavily that they'd have been in danger of being crushed under an avalanche of public opinion in favor of funding support positions.
posted by Nerd of the North at 3:34 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
More seriously, though, I'm completely convinced that if the Trudeaus had really wanted funding for a staff to assist Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau in coordinating her pseudo-state-duties the way to get it would have been to make a public statement about how Canada, as a smaller nation can't afford, and shouldn't expect, to fund the sort of resources that the first spouses of UK and US leaders receive. Maybe I overestimate Canadian insecurity but I'd bet pretty heavily that they'd have been in danger of being crushed under an avalanche of public opinion in favor of funding support positions.
posted by Nerd of the North at 3:34 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
If random person were being asked to do charity work for free and that work could generate donations in excess of the cost of two assistants, would you favour the assistants being hired from the public purse?
She's not being asked to do these things because she's a random person, but because she is married to the Prime Minister AND has the connections of an entertainment reporter, and therefore her work can generate donations far FAR in excess of the cost of two assistants.
posted by tel3path at 3:37 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
She's not being asked to do these things because she's a random person, but because she is married to the Prime Minister AND has the connections of an entertainment reporter, and therefore her work can generate donations far FAR in excess of the cost of two assistants.
posted by tel3path at 3:37 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Right, that's why in my random other person scenario I also specified that random other person (if entertainment reporter connections are important, let's go with an other entertainment reporter, say Ben Mulroney) could also generate revenue in excess of the cost of assistants. So as long as it's in the public interest because it generates revenue for charity in excess of what it costs the public, then the public should pay for assistants?
I actually don't object much that idea. Set up a system of grants. If your pro-bono work can generate more pubic good than it costs, we'll pay you and your assistants. My issue isn't with the cost, it's the idea that being married to the PM should carry duties that bothers me.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 3:45 PM on May 16, 2016
I actually don't object much that idea. Set up a system of grants. If your pro-bono work can generate more pubic good than it costs, we'll pay you and your assistants. My issue isn't with the cost, it's the idea that being married to the PM should carry duties that bothers me.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 3:45 PM on May 16, 2016
If random person were being asked to do charity work for free and that work could generate donations in excess of the cost of two assistants, would you favour the assistants being hired from the public purse?
Er...yes? Especially if, due to other circumstances, the "random person" was constrained from turning down the offer and returning to their previous life, at least for some time.
posted by Krom Tatman at 3:46 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Er...yes? Especially if, due to other circumstances, the "random person" was constrained from turning down the offer and returning to their previous life, at least for some time.
posted by Krom Tatman at 3:46 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
She isn't anyone else, she's the prime minister's spouse. It's like saying "why do we spend all this money on providing security for the president, would you spend that same kind of money on security for any random person off the street?"
posted by Ferreous at 3:47 PM on May 16, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by Ferreous at 3:47 PM on May 16, 2016 [20 favorites]
This whole thing really does seem an awful lot like professional mouth-frothers in the op-ed-heavy Canadian media with column inches to fill and nothing much to rant about, and I don't actually give a whole lotta craps about a few thousand bucks of public money, but what the heck, hot takes are easy when the stakes are practically nonexistent, so here's mine:
The spouse of the Prime Minister is not an elected official, is not a public servant in any capacity, even as a ceremonial dignitary or ambassador, and should be publicly compensated accordingly, i.e. not at all. If the spouse of the Prime Minister can't get by on the Prime Minister's salary, then the spouse of the Prime Minister is welcome to seek out paid employment in the private sector, and in any case should forward all requests for official public appearances to the Prime Minister's office and stop doing them oneself.
But, again, this isn't exactly Imelda Marcos we're talking about. And if it's public money that's the issue, whatever ire can possibly be mustered should be aimed squarely at Justin Trudeau himself, no? He's the only one in this situation who actually answers to us. If too much public money's getting funneled to his family, that's something to take up with him and him alone.
Becoming First Spouse looks like all the worst parts of being a celebrity, without having chosen it, and without getting paid for it (or building up your own career)
Meh. If you say so. I couldn't tell you any of our Prime Minister's wives' names, except Margaret Trudeau, and I was born during her short reign-with-an-asterisk. Indeed, I'd honestly have to scroll up for this Trudeau's wife's name, and don't care enough to bother. If anyone should ask, I think I'll say "Trudy." But I don't think anyone would ask, because I really, really, really don't think I'm alone among Canadians in my total apathy about her or how she lives. She's just some lady.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:52 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
The spouse of the Prime Minister is not an elected official, is not a public servant in any capacity, even as a ceremonial dignitary or ambassador, and should be publicly compensated accordingly, i.e. not at all. If the spouse of the Prime Minister can't get by on the Prime Minister's salary, then the spouse of the Prime Minister is welcome to seek out paid employment in the private sector, and in any case should forward all requests for official public appearances to the Prime Minister's office and stop doing them oneself.
But, again, this isn't exactly Imelda Marcos we're talking about. And if it's public money that's the issue, whatever ire can possibly be mustered should be aimed squarely at Justin Trudeau himself, no? He's the only one in this situation who actually answers to us. If too much public money's getting funneled to his family, that's something to take up with him and him alone.
Becoming First Spouse looks like all the worst parts of being a celebrity, without having chosen it, and without getting paid for it (or building up your own career)
Meh. If you say so. I couldn't tell you any of our Prime Minister's wives' names, except Margaret Trudeau, and I was born during her short reign-with-an-asterisk. Indeed, I'd honestly have to scroll up for this Trudeau's wife's name, and don't care enough to bother. If anyone should ask, I think I'll say "Trudy." But I don't think anyone would ask, because I really, really, really don't think I'm alone among Canadians in my total apathy about her or how she lives. She's just some lady.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:52 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
My point is that they should go along if they want to but there should be no expectation that they do so. There's no reason why it's necessary that they be expected to do so.
I mean, okay, but at this point you're at "well these international social norms don't exist" when they do. Sure, maybe they're terrible--but they exist, and you're trying to engage with a version of the world that isn't really reflective of reality.
If random person were being asked to do charity work for free and that work could generate donations in excess of the cost of two assistants, would you favour the assistants being hired from the public purse?
She isn't a random person. The context really matters here, and Ferreous' point about security is an apt one. Do you think Gregoire Trudeau shouldn't have security coverage paid out of the public purse?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:52 PM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
I mean, okay, but at this point you're at "well these international social norms don't exist" when they do. Sure, maybe they're terrible--but they exist, and you're trying to engage with a version of the world that isn't really reflective of reality.
If random person were being asked to do charity work for free and that work could generate donations in excess of the cost of two assistants, would you favour the assistants being hired from the public purse?
She isn't a random person. The context really matters here, and Ferreous' point about security is an apt one. Do you think Gregoire Trudeau shouldn't have security coverage paid out of the public purse?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:52 PM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
Speaking as a Canadian whose tax dollars are theoretically at play here, I just don't care. The amount to hire two staffers is a pittance in comparison to the money the government spends on any number of other things and it just seems like... bigger fish to fry here, Canadian media.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 3:54 PM on May 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 3:54 PM on May 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
It's worth remember that Canada is country of parsimonious cheapskates. Also saying "but Mila Mulroney had three assistants" forgets the fact that most Canadians of a certain age ended up hating Mulroney, notably conservative voters (I think he was a great prime minister).
posted by My Dad at 3:58 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by My Dad at 3:58 PM on May 16, 2016
I already said I think of course her security should be paid from the public purse including whatever security would be necessary for her to do whatever work she chooses to do (free or paid). If we require that people do to things that put them in positions of danger (and we do require that someone be PM and that person will probably have family), then it's our responsibility to do everything possible to mitigate that danger.
PMs go to dinners and international meetings sans spouses all the time, sometimes because they are single and sometimes because their spouses cannot go then for whatever reason. I just fundamentally don't believe it would cause international scandal if the PM showed up somewhere without his spouse.
Incidentally, I tried to look up what Kathleen Wynne's spouse does, btw though I was able to find her name, I couldn't find out what she does. Which is how it should be, because WTF business is it of mine. Incidentally, it appears Wynne is on a trade mission now and there's no mention of her wife going with her.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 4:02 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
PMs go to dinners and international meetings sans spouses all the time, sometimes because they are single and sometimes because their spouses cannot go then for whatever reason. I just fundamentally don't believe it would cause international scandal if the PM showed up somewhere without his spouse.
Incidentally, I tried to look up what Kathleen Wynne's spouse does, btw though I was able to find her name, I couldn't find out what she does. Which is how it should be, because WTF business is it of mine. Incidentally, it appears Wynne is on a trade mission now and there's no mention of her wife going with her.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 4:02 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I thought that the security budget for a Prime Minister's wife was an Inuit carving.
If only I had a penguin... - I posted the link to Wynne's spouse's LinkedIn page above. She's "President & Managing Partner at The Osborne Group", which does executive services. (That means management consulting, I think.)
posted by clawsoon at 4:08 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
If only I had a penguin... - I posted the link to Wynne's spouse's LinkedIn page above. She's "President & Managing Partner at The Osborne Group", which does executive services. (That means management consulting, I think.)
posted by clawsoon at 4:08 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
most Canadians of a certain age ended up hating Mulroney, notably conservative voters
lol no that... no. That's like saying most US conservatives hate Reagan. It's just not a thing. Liberals and NDP hate Mulroney because he was objectively awful for the country.
If we require that people do to things that put them in positions of danger (and we do require that someone be PM and that person will probably have family), then it's our responsibility to do everything possible to mitigate that danger.
And by the same token, there is an expectation, whether or not you think it should exist, that HoG spouses act as support to the elected officials to whom they are married. And for a PM's spouse to continue working is virtually impossible if they wish to have a career in anything that could be remotely politically sensitive.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:10 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
lol no that... no. That's like saying most US conservatives hate Reagan. It's just not a thing. Liberals and NDP hate Mulroney because he was objectively awful for the country.
If we require that people do to things that put them in positions of danger (and we do require that someone be PM and that person will probably have family), then it's our responsibility to do everything possible to mitigate that danger.
And by the same token, there is an expectation, whether or not you think it should exist, that HoG spouses act as support to the elected officials to whom they are married. And for a PM's spouse to continue working is virtually impossible if they wish to have a career in anything that could be remotely politically sensitive.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:10 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ah, ok, thanks clawsoon. Sounds like a potential crapstorm of conflicts of interest. If she can find a way to do that, (and so many children of world leaders can find ways to work at actual jobs), it's hard to see why spouses of leaders can't find ways to work in all sorts of industries.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 4:11 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 4:11 PM on May 16, 2016
Speaking as a Canadian whose tax dollars are theoretically at play here, I just don't care. The amount to hire two staffers is a pittance in comparison to the money the government spends on any number of other things and it just seems like... bigger fish to fry here, Canadian media.
Yeah, this is where I find myself on this. It's a minor rounding error somewhere on the balance sheet.
I thought that the security budget for a Prime Minister's wife was an Inuit carving.
First Nations come through with art that the PM's wife can deploy for home defence when the RCMP can't figure out how to maintain a security perimeter around 24 Sussex.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 4:13 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, this is where I find myself on this. It's a minor rounding error somewhere on the balance sheet.
I thought that the security budget for a Prime Minister's wife was an Inuit carving.
First Nations come through with art that the PM's wife can deploy for home defence when the RCMP can't figure out how to maintain a security perimeter around 24 Sussex.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 4:13 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure Rounthwaite is the example you want, nor Wynne's brother-in-law.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:14 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 4:14 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
feckless fecal fear mongering: lol no that... no. That's like saying most US conservatives hate Reagan. It's just not a thing.
It's definitely a thing. :-) Large chunks of Canadian conservatives ended up hating him; My Dad is on the money. The Bloc and Reform were born as groups of Mulroney-hating conservatives, though the Bloc has since gone left. Hatred for Mulroney destroyed the conservative coalition he crafted. I grew up in one of the most conservative areas of the country, and I can attest to the depth and length of the hate from Western conservatives. "Mulroney" is a bad word.
posted by clawsoon at 4:24 PM on May 16, 2016
It's definitely a thing. :-) Large chunks of Canadian conservatives ended up hating him; My Dad is on the money. The Bloc and Reform were born as groups of Mulroney-hating conservatives, though the Bloc has since gone left. Hatred for Mulroney destroyed the conservative coalition he crafted. I grew up in one of the most conservative areas of the country, and I can attest to the depth and length of the hate from Western conservatives. "Mulroney" is a bad word.
posted by clawsoon at 4:24 PM on May 16, 2016
I think that it's fair for public money to be spent to hire her some assistants for two reasons:
While I AM moved by arguments that stem from a feminist analysis of the institutionalized roles of the spouses of heads of state, there is no way I know of to deconstruct that systematic structure in Canadian culture in a manner timely enough to provide Sophie with an additional realistic choice of how to live her life. In light of that, I would consider it oppressive to deny her the relatively meagre resources that she's asking for. If our culture considers her and the PM inseparable enough to prevent her from continuing in her career I think it's only fair she be offered the opportunity to also be in public service if she has the will to do so.
posted by WaylandSmith at 4:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
- The utility of the work that she can do for the public is high, and very much in relation to the fact that she and the PM have social as well as political prominence.
- There is no other entity OTHER than the Government of Canada that is ALLOWED to offer her the resources to do this work. She cannot be paid for appearances by charities. She cannot be offered grants from private donors or corporate entities. She cannot even work in her previous profession to raise money for herself due to a high likelihood of conflicts of interest.
While I AM moved by arguments that stem from a feminist analysis of the institutionalized roles of the spouses of heads of state, there is no way I know of to deconstruct that systematic structure in Canadian culture in a manner timely enough to provide Sophie with an additional realistic choice of how to live her life. In light of that, I would consider it oppressive to deny her the relatively meagre resources that she's asking for. If our culture considers her and the PM inseparable enough to prevent her from continuing in her career I think it's only fair she be offered the opportunity to also be in public service if she has the will to do so.
posted by WaylandSmith at 4:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
WaylandSmith: There is no other entity OTHER than the Government of Canada that is ALLOWED to offer her the resources to do this work. She cannot be paid for appearances by charities. She cannot be offered grants from private donors or corporate entities.
Are you sure? That's something I've never heard before. Is that an actual rule? Does it apply to other spouses of Canadian politicians, too?
posted by clawsoon at 4:28 PM on May 16, 2016
Are you sure? That's something I've never heard before. Is that an actual rule? Does it apply to other spouses of Canadian politicians, too?
posted by clawsoon at 4:28 PM on May 16, 2016
If it is a rule, it sounds un-Canadian to me, and I think it should be changed.
posted by clawsoon at 4:30 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 4:30 PM on May 16, 2016
Also saying "but Mila Mulroney had three assistants" forgets the fact that most Canadians of a certain age ended up hating Mulroney, notably conservative voters
I don't think Mulroney hatred had much to do with what his wife was doing, but it's very possible I'm missing your point. The guy brought in the GST, conservatives hate taxes. He tried to placate Quebec, that is often contentious with conservative voters. There were rumors of corruption and bribery. That never goes over well with anyone, really. He also had a personality that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.
posted by Hoopo at 4:45 PM on May 16, 2016
I don't think Mulroney hatred had much to do with what his wife was doing, but it's very possible I'm missing your point. The guy brought in the GST, conservatives hate taxes. He tried to placate Quebec, that is often contentious with conservative voters. There were rumors of corruption and bribery. That never goes over well with anyone, really. He also had a personality that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.
posted by Hoopo at 4:45 PM on May 16, 2016
I don't think it's an official rule as such, but if she was unable to maintain her job as a journalist because of possible conflicts of interest, how could she possibly take money from private interests that will directly enter into the finances of the PM's household? Isn't this exactly why politicians have to wait until they're out of office before they can reap the windfall of public appearances?
posted by WaylandSmith at 4:45 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by WaylandSmith at 4:45 PM on May 16, 2016
I think the most important issue here is to set a precedent on a per-wife level, in case the next Prime Minister is a polygamist. Given the incredible attention to detail being expended on this issue, I look forward to seeing a number, to three significant figures, giving the number of assistants per wife, to allow future leaders to optimise wives to achieve integer assistants.
posted by nfalkner at 4:59 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by nfalkner at 4:59 PM on May 16, 2016
Re: Mulroney, and sorry if this is a derail. Stevie Cameron's On the Take was a big deal at the time. Karlheinz Schreiber anyone? Two words: paper bag.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:05 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:05 PM on May 16, 2016
The only good thing about a longer stretch of time with Kim Campbell as PM would have been that we could have taken a look at how the country handled this when the PM's spouse was male.
Except she was not married at the time.
Thwarted!
posted by chapps at 5:06 PM on May 16, 2016
Except she was not married at the time.
Thwarted!
posted by chapps at 5:06 PM on May 16, 2016
I find it hard to imagine anyone expecting a husband to play this role.
Canada does not have a first lady/spouse, and I like it that way. A spouse doesn't need to share political views, also.
posted by chapps at 5:08 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Canada does not have a first lady/spouse, and I like it that way. A spouse doesn't need to share political views, also.
posted by chapps at 5:08 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
How would we deal with a Prime Ministerial wedding? Given:
It's worth remember that Canada is country of parsimonious cheapskates.
I'd say we'd throw them a cheap do at the local united church, get them a 24, and the key's to Bob's cabin up on Scugog for the weekend.
There was outrage at the repairs to be done to 24 Sussex, which is like, the place where the PM lives.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 5:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's worth remember that Canada is country of parsimonious cheapskates.
I'd say we'd throw them a cheap do at the local united church, get them a 24, and the key's to Bob's cabin up on Scugog for the weekend.
There was outrage at the repairs to be done to 24 Sussex, which is like, the place where the PM lives.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 5:09 PM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
Oh good, a time to find out the country I happily make my home in has closet misogynists like every place else! We'd not be having this convo if Sophie Gregoire was a man, just so we are damned clear on that.
posted by Kitteh at 5:10 PM on May 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 5:10 PM on May 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
Maureen McTeer continuing to work and keep her name pretty much caused a scandal at the time.
I believe Margaret Trudeau (Justin Trudeau's mother, who was married to PM Pierre Trudeau) has discussed the pressures on the spouse of the prime minister. She has detailed the expectations for international diplomacy. She tried to balk some of those traditions in the 70s, thinking the world was more inclusive than it was. I suspect that part of what Sophie Gregoire Trudeau is doing is addressing those expectations, both past and present. And both Gregoire Trudeau and Trudeau have said they are taking a feminist perspective. If you don't recognize the unpaid labour of women and the emotional labour and genderized expectations, you aren't helping the matter.
posted by Chaussette and the Pussy Cats at 5:10 PM on May 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
I believe Margaret Trudeau (Justin Trudeau's mother, who was married to PM Pierre Trudeau) has discussed the pressures on the spouse of the prime minister. She has detailed the expectations for international diplomacy. She tried to balk some of those traditions in the 70s, thinking the world was more inclusive than it was. I suspect that part of what Sophie Gregoire Trudeau is doing is addressing those expectations, both past and present. And both Gregoire Trudeau and Trudeau have said they are taking a feminist perspective. If you don't recognize the unpaid labour of women and the emotional labour and genderized expectations, you aren't helping the matter.
posted by Chaussette and the Pussy Cats at 5:10 PM on May 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
We are a nation which proudly turfed a cabinet minister for buying a $16 orange juice. Don't be surprised at the detailed nature of the attention.
It's doubly galling that Trudeau said, during the campaign, that he didn't think wealthy Canadians should get childcare help from the government. It won him points then; the hypocrisy loses him extra points now.
Imagine Bernie Sanders getting elected President and then his wife asking for a gold-plated healthcare plan that's only for the President's family. Maybe it would be a perfectly reasonable thing given the stresses of the job, but the optics would be horrible.
posted by clawsoon at 5:10 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's doubly galling that Trudeau said, during the campaign, that he didn't think wealthy Canadians should get childcare help from the government. It won him points then; the hypocrisy loses him extra points now.
Imagine Bernie Sanders getting elected President and then his wife asking for a gold-plated healthcare plan that's only for the President's family. Maybe it would be a perfectly reasonable thing given the stresses of the job, but the optics would be horrible.
posted by clawsoon at 5:10 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'd say we'd throw them a cheap do at the local united church, get them a 24, and the key's to Bob's cabin up on Scugog for the weekend.
That's for the aristocracy! It'll be at the Moose Hall or the Legion there, eh?
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:19 PM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's for the aristocracy! It'll be at the Moose Hall or the Legion there, eh?
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:19 PM on May 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
Kitteh: We'd not be having this convo if Sophie Gregoire was a man, just so we damned clear on that.
If a male spouse of a Prime Minister was asking Parliament to pay for multiple personal assistants for himself, the response would be ugly. Not as ugly, agreed, and not as ugly for exactly the reason you state, but still pretty ugly. (If they had young children, though, it might be a different story, since "of course" men need lots of help with raising children. That would be a fascinating scenario to see the response to, although "OMG she has toddlers she can't be PM!!" would probably prevent us from getting even close to that.)
On this subject, it's interesting to see the flack that Rachel Notley is getting about giving standard spousal access to stuff like Outlook calendars to her husband. I suspect that it's partly perception of conflict of interest, and partly the expectation that a spouse who is a man is powerful because he's a man and therefore he shouldn't be given secrets, while a spouse who is a woman can be told everything because she doesn't matter and it's just pillow-talk. So there are multiple ways that sexism intersects with this and will continue to intersect as more leaders are not men with traditional heterosexual marriages.
posted by clawsoon at 5:31 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
If a male spouse of a Prime Minister was asking Parliament to pay for multiple personal assistants for himself, the response would be ugly. Not as ugly, agreed, and not as ugly for exactly the reason you state, but still pretty ugly. (If they had young children, though, it might be a different story, since "of course" men need lots of help with raising children. That would be a fascinating scenario to see the response to, although "OMG she has toddlers she can't be PM!!" would probably prevent us from getting even close to that.)
On this subject, it's interesting to see the flack that Rachel Notley is getting about giving standard spousal access to stuff like Outlook calendars to her husband. I suspect that it's partly perception of conflict of interest, and partly the expectation that a spouse who is a man is powerful because he's a man and therefore he shouldn't be given secrets, while a spouse who is a woman can be told everything because she doesn't matter and it's just pillow-talk. So there are multiple ways that sexism intersects with this and will continue to intersect as more leaders are not men with traditional heterosexual marriages.
posted by clawsoon at 5:31 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's worth remember that Canada is country of parsimonious cheapskates.
It's worth remembering that the PM is not the head of state. Ms. Trudeau is not "First Lady." She's the spouse of the chief public official. If people want her to perform certain functions and it makes sense, her staff should be expanded for pragmatic reasons, but not because she should be considered to have a quasi-ceremonial role representing Canada. The PM gets some perks, but not Presidential perks because he is not the head of state. Canada is not besmirched by having his needs taken care of with economy. The whole point of the GG role is to deal with that sort of thing.
posted by mobunited at 5:41 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's worth remembering that the PM is not the head of state. Ms. Trudeau is not "First Lady." She's the spouse of the chief public official. If people want her to perform certain functions and it makes sense, her staff should be expanded for pragmatic reasons, but not because she should be considered to have a quasi-ceremonial role representing Canada. The PM gets some perks, but not Presidential perks because he is not the head of state. Canada is not besmirched by having his needs taken care of with economy. The whole point of the GG role is to deal with that sort of thing.
posted by mobunited at 5:41 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Two other thoughts on the more structural issue -- first is that with the rise of the Commons, and democracy generally, and the importance of the lower houses of Parliaments over the upper houses, I think that's created a perverse incentive to increase the importance of the PM's office as monarchs and heads of state have become less and less important. The prestige and pomp goes where the power is, and that's not the Queen or the Governor-General, it's the Prime Minister. Returning to a lower-key PM's office, when he was a dirt-farmin' man of the Commons, would probably require returning some of the vast power of the Commons to the Monarchy and the Senate. The power of the Commons means that it will be made of powerful people, who will be increasingly chased by pomp and prestige and prosperity. On the one hand it's an important thing to fight against, because power brings corruption; on the other hand, it's not a reality we can just wish away, and ignoring it sets up its own channels for corruption.
Secondly, some of this seems, to an outsider, very much about Canada wanting to think of itself as a small, scrappy country that doesn't need all this big-country nonsense, but GUYS, you're one of the 10 largest economies in the world (depending on how one counts), you are the very definition of a Big Dog. Like I know there's a bigger dog next door, but you're still one of the very biggest dogs on the block. You're going to get stuck with some of the big-country trappings.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:44 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Secondly, some of this seems, to an outsider, very much about Canada wanting to think of itself as a small, scrappy country that doesn't need all this big-country nonsense, but GUYS, you're one of the 10 largest economies in the world (depending on how one counts), you are the very definition of a Big Dog. Like I know there's a bigger dog next door, but you're still one of the very biggest dogs on the block. You're going to get stuck with some of the big-country trappings.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:44 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
There are reasons - and you can Google them - about why we never heard about Laureen Harper.
The Chrétiens and the Martins were much older when the respective pères and mères inhabited 24 Sussex.
But this weird parsimony is essentially a social media shitstorm over Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's passing comments. And, you know, she's married and has children with a guy who grew up IN THIS EXACT MILIEU.
So, you know, maybe give her the benefit of the doubt? She's probably had conversations with Margaret Trudeau about the pressures that might ensue because Margaret Trudeau was ONCE IN HER SHOES. Or at least had conversations with her own husband about WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO GROW UP IN THIS when he was a kid.
Ahem. Lighter, but again relevant to the skinflintery on display:
Maureen McTeer, Joe Clark’s wife, spoke of electrical circuits overloading. Paul Martin’s wife, Sheila, reported severe drafts in winter. That complaint, and word of similar problems in the Chrétien years, inspired political satirist Rick Mercer to film a segment in 2005, in which he goes to Canadian Tire with prime minister Paul Martin to buy plastic window insulation.
Now, can you imagine Jon Stewart or John Oliver showing up at the White House with an offer to treat the windows with plastic?
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:50 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
The Chrétiens and the Martins were much older when the respective pères and mères inhabited 24 Sussex.
But this weird parsimony is essentially a social media shitstorm over Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's passing comments. And, you know, she's married and has children with a guy who grew up IN THIS EXACT MILIEU.
So, you know, maybe give her the benefit of the doubt? She's probably had conversations with Margaret Trudeau about the pressures that might ensue because Margaret Trudeau was ONCE IN HER SHOES. Or at least had conversations with her own husband about WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO GROW UP IN THIS when he was a kid.
Ahem. Lighter, but again relevant to the skinflintery on display:
Maureen McTeer, Joe Clark’s wife, spoke of electrical circuits overloading. Paul Martin’s wife, Sheila, reported severe drafts in winter. That complaint, and word of similar problems in the Chrétien years, inspired political satirist Rick Mercer to film a segment in 2005, in which he goes to Canadian Tire with prime minister Paul Martin to buy plastic window insulation.
Now, can you imagine Jon Stewart or John Oliver showing up at the White House with an offer to treat the windows with plastic?
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:50 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Secondly, some of this seems, to an outsider, very much about Canada wanting to think of itself as a small, scrappy country that doesn't need all this big-country nonsense
That is a misread of the situation and please don't do this.
You're going to get stuck with some of the big-country trappings.
And this is just insulting. Please don't do this.
The prestige and pomp goes where the power is, and that's not the Queen or the Governor-General, it's the Prime Minister
Prestige yes. Pomp? No. There's very little pomp/ceremonial/etc around the PM.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:53 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
That is a misread of the situation and please don't do this.
You're going to get stuck with some of the big-country trappings.
And this is just insulting. Please don't do this.
The prestige and pomp goes where the power is, and that's not the Queen or the Governor-General, it's the Prime Minister
Prestige yes. Pomp? No. There's very little pomp/ceremonial/etc around the PM.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:53 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
And so, 165 comments into the thread, FFFM and I agree. Eyebrows McGee is wrong on this one (with all due respect to the office of mod and all the power, prestige, and pomp of the moderator role).
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 5:58 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 5:58 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Returning to a lower-key PM's office, when he was a dirt-farmin' man of the Commons, would probably require returning some of the vast power of the Commons to the Monarchy and the Senate.
No.
That was the alleged appeal of our last PM. He claimed to be a "Western" voice despite the fact he was born and raised right here in Toronto, bastion of the "elites." Analogous to George W. Bush cultivating the persona of a Texan rancher and oil man despite being the scion of New England bluebloods.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:58 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
No.
That was the alleged appeal of our last PM. He claimed to be a "Western" voice despite the fact he was born and raised right here in Toronto, bastion of the "elites." Analogous to George W. Bush cultivating the persona of a Texan rancher and oil man despite being the scion of New England bluebloods.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:58 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
"There's very little pomp/ceremonial/etc around the PM."
State dinners are pomp. Doesn't have to be fancy-uniformed-kilted-guys-and-trumpets-and-robes pomp. Anything that's like, "hey that seems like a head of state thing" that's now turning up as mandatory events for heads of government, which happens more and more often.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:02 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
State dinners are pomp. Doesn't have to be fancy-uniformed-kilted-guys-and-trumpets-and-robes pomp. Anything that's like, "hey that seems like a head of state thing" that's now turning up as mandatory events for heads of government, which happens more and more often.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:02 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's a bit of protocol, sure, but we're still dealing with son of the pirouette.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 6:05 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 6:05 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
If her husband doesn't want to allocate his existing budget to support work by his wife, she should take it up with him.
Are you kidding? Considering that people are arguing about this when she's transparently asking for the resources and stating exactly how she intents to use them, you think it would be go over better if it the PM simply delegated resources appointed to him to his wife with no official accountability?
posted by WaylandSmith at 6:06 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Are you kidding? Considering that people are arguing about this when she's transparently asking for the resources and stating exactly how she intents to use them, you think it would be go over better if it the PM simply delegated resources appointed to him to his wife with no official accountability?
posted by WaylandSmith at 6:06 PM on May 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Why wouldn't there be any accountability if the PM had his staff assist the First Lady in her official duties?
There are a lot of flaws in this question. There is no first lady. And the PM's spouse has no official duties. And it's not taxpayer money.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:13 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
There are a lot of flaws in this question. There is no first lady. And the PM's spouse has no official duties. And it's not taxpayer money.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:13 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
If Ms Trudeau gets government-funded support for charity engagements, does this make them official engagements? Because that has a whole lot of implications. To start with, a car and driver for local events. Canada's a big country, though, so it means anything up to a private jet for remote appearances. A wardrobe allowance? I understand that there are some social expectations that come with official engagements; I don't know how the White House handles it but I don't suppose Michelle Obama pays for this personally. I mean, the role she envisages is a very large one, far larger than the impression given by "she wants to go to a few charity dinners, what's the problem".
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:14 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:14 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
State dinners are pomp.
Canadian state dinners are held by the Governor-General. Showing up at one of yours does not magically make the PM the head of state. Canada is a whole other country that is not the United States.
posted by mobunited at 6:15 PM on May 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
Canadian state dinners are held by the Governor-General. Showing up at one of yours does not magically make the PM the head of state. Canada is a whole other country that is not the United States.
posted by mobunited at 6:15 PM on May 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
This is only a thing because of collective media insecurity about being Canadian. Media constantly compares ourselves to the states like we don't exist in our own right. The second we have something remotely close to Michelle and they all try to make her something... when in truth she is very unremarkable and not worth the pixel ink. Honestly I was way more interested in Laureen and their revolving door of cat fostering than what Sophie wore. (And don't get me started on her so-called style - completely bland, 'me-too' and lacklustre ugh.) Just because the U.S. has Michelle doesn't mean we need one too.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 6:22 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by St. Peepsburg at 6:22 PM on May 16, 2016
Returning to a lower-key PM's office, when he was a dirt-farmin' man of the Commons, would probably require returning some of the vast power of the Commons to the Monarchy and the Senate.
Oh and this? There has literally never been a 'dirt-farmin' man of the Commons' as PM of Canada.
Macdonald - Lawyer
Mackenzie - Stonemason until 45, politician for 25 years after that, including his 5-year stint as PM
Abbot - Missionary, Lawyer
Thompson - Lawyer, Judge
Bowell - Printer, Editor
Tupper - Doctor
Laurier - Lawyer
Borden - Teacher, Lawyer
Meighen - BA Math, Lawyer
Mackenzie King - 5 university degrees incl PhD from Harvard
Bennett - Lawyer
St. Laurent - Lawyer
Diefenbaker - Lawyer
Pearson - BA, MA (Oxford)
Trudeau pere - Lawyer
Clark - Journalism and legal background; entered politics very young
Turner - Lawyer, degrees from Oxford
Mulroney - Lawyer
Campbell - Lawyer
Chretien - Lawyer
Martin - Lawyer
Harper - Econmist
Trudeau fils - Teacher
State dinners are pomp. Doesn't have to be fancy-uniformed-kilted-guys-and-trumpets-and-robes pomp. Anything that's like, "hey that seems like a head of state thing" that's now turning up as mandatory events for heads of government, which happens more and more often.
Maybe rethink telling Canadians how our government really is when we're telling you otherwise, eh? I didn't say zero, I said very little. As said above, State dinners held in Canada have the GG as host--same way The Queen hosts State dinners in the UK (or here, if she's visiting). State dinners held elsewhere depend. Usually visits from here to there are done by the PM, and so it's the PM. The Queen has visited the USA once in her capacity as Queen of Canada, if memory serves, and I don't think the GG (who is, after all is said and done, merely a representative and therefore not of equal 'rank' to your President) has ever made a State Visit to the USA.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh and this? There has literally never been a 'dirt-farmin' man of the Commons' as PM of Canada.
Macdonald - Lawyer
Mackenzie - Stonemason until 45, politician for 25 years after that, including his 5-year stint as PM
Abbot - Missionary, Lawyer
Thompson - Lawyer, Judge
Bowell - Printer, Editor
Tupper - Doctor
Laurier - Lawyer
Borden - Teacher, Lawyer
Meighen - BA Math, Lawyer
Mackenzie King - 5 university degrees incl PhD from Harvard
Bennett - Lawyer
St. Laurent - Lawyer
Diefenbaker - Lawyer
Pearson - BA, MA (Oxford)
Trudeau pere - Lawyer
Clark - Journalism and legal background; entered politics very young
Turner - Lawyer, degrees from Oxford
Mulroney - Lawyer
Campbell - Lawyer
Chretien - Lawyer
Martin - Lawyer
Harper - Econmist
Trudeau fils - Teacher
State dinners are pomp. Doesn't have to be fancy-uniformed-kilted-guys-and-trumpets-and-robes pomp. Anything that's like, "hey that seems like a head of state thing" that's now turning up as mandatory events for heads of government, which happens more and more often.
Maybe rethink telling Canadians how our government really is when we're telling you otherwise, eh? I didn't say zero, I said very little. As said above, State dinners held in Canada have the GG as host--same way The Queen hosts State dinners in the UK (or here, if she's visiting). State dinners held elsewhere depend. Usually visits from here to there are done by the PM, and so it's the PM. The Queen has visited the USA once in her capacity as Queen of Canada, if memory serves, and I don't think the GG (who is, after all is said and done, merely a representative and therefore not of equal 'rank' to your President) has ever made a State Visit to the USA.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:24 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I do think SOME Canadians have been expressing a desire to have the PM's office reflect a simpler time when Canada was less prominent on the world stage and the Commons was simply less powerful, and Prime Ministers' needs were much simpler in terms of staff and security and travel, and PM's families needs could be met within existing social structures. Canada's a really powerful country with a really big economy and I just don't think it's possible for the PM to live with the level of simplicity some people are advocating. (Not everyone! But clearly some people want that, and "dirt farmer" came from a Canadian farther up the thread.) And that along with the increased complexity of the PM's job, social roles have just shifted a lot and the demands on his family have also increased. It's a really different world, and Canada's role in it is really different, than it was just 50 years ago. Some of this debate is clearly about feminism, family roles, the media being bored, etc., but some of it is also clearly what is and is not properly Canadian and properly within the role of the Prime Minister (and the PM's spouse and children) and it's a tricky question because the world has changed so fast.
I do think the ideal thing would be for government to provide several options to the PM's family -- here are the mandatory constraints of security and residency and whatnot that we need you to deal with (point of curiosity -- are PMs allowed to buy random food at the supermarket?); here are some options and costs if you choose to be a non-resident spouse; here are some options and costs if you choose to live in Ottawa but not participate in your spouse's obligations; here are some options and costs if you continue working; here are some options and costs if you serve in a social role supporting the PM's office. I agree it shouldn't be an expectation that political spouses must take on a "First Lady" sort of role, but it's also obvious that social roles, family needs, and other obligations are shifting fast, and it'd be cool to provide several options so that women (and eventually men!) in these highly-constrained roles can make at least some choices about what their lives will look like, and we can have actual conversations about the costs of the roles we thrust upon them.
"Showing up at one of yours does not magically make the PM the head of state. "
Yes but the point is she had to come to one of ours despite not being married to the head of state, which is increasingly the case for heads of government getting roped into state dinners that used to be the province of heads of state. OBVIOUSLY the PM doesn't host head-of-state dinners in Canada, but the PM sometimes has to attend them, with wife, outside of Canada. And that's the case for a lot of European parliamentary democracies as well, because heads of state are just not as interesting or famous as they used to be (but for a few well-known monarchs).
Also TBH "pomp" just sounds good with "power" and "prestige" and I was GOING FOR IT on alliteration.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:27 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I do think the ideal thing would be for government to provide several options to the PM's family -- here are the mandatory constraints of security and residency and whatnot that we need you to deal with (point of curiosity -- are PMs allowed to buy random food at the supermarket?); here are some options and costs if you choose to be a non-resident spouse; here are some options and costs if you choose to live in Ottawa but not participate in your spouse's obligations; here are some options and costs if you continue working; here are some options and costs if you serve in a social role supporting the PM's office. I agree it shouldn't be an expectation that political spouses must take on a "First Lady" sort of role, but it's also obvious that social roles, family needs, and other obligations are shifting fast, and it'd be cool to provide several options so that women (and eventually men!) in these highly-constrained roles can make at least some choices about what their lives will look like, and we can have actual conversations about the costs of the roles we thrust upon them.
"Showing up at one of yours does not magically make the PM the head of state. "
Yes but the point is she had to come to one of ours despite not being married to the head of state, which is increasingly the case for heads of government getting roped into state dinners that used to be the province of heads of state. OBVIOUSLY the PM doesn't host head-of-state dinners in Canada, but the PM sometimes has to attend them, with wife, outside of Canada. And that's the case for a lot of European parliamentary democracies as well, because heads of state are just not as interesting or famous as they used to be (but for a few well-known monarchs).
Also TBH "pomp" just sounds good with "power" and "prestige" and I was GOING FOR IT on alliteration.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:27 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
scrittore: "The last PM increased his own exempt PMO staff from 68 to 94 (all much higher paid than a PA) without the blink of an eye. "
Well as with so much other stuff Harper got away with a lot of little crap like this without an outcry because the big stuff was gathering all the attention. And we certainly shouldn't be holding up any of his actions as a good way of doing things without some other support. Harper increasing his staff might make a better counter argument what with him making everything go through he PMO.
posted by Mitheral at 6:32 PM on May 16, 2016
Well as with so much other stuff Harper got away with a lot of little crap like this without an outcry because the big stuff was gathering all the attention. And we certainly shouldn't be holding up any of his actions as a good way of doing things without some other support. Harper increasing his staff might make a better counter argument what with him making everything go through he PMO.
posted by Mitheral at 6:32 PM on May 16, 2016
Yelling "taxpayer money" when it's such an inconsequential sum feels like a straw man thing. The graft associated with any single government contract is likely more than this by a large margin, but this gets way more attention because it's shitting on a liberal and a woman.
posted by Ferreous at 6:33 PM on May 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Ferreous at 6:33 PM on May 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
I'm of two minds about this question, but just thought I'd throw this about about the source of money. If it is decided (by whatever means) that Canadian taxpayers shouldn't foot this bill then there is always the fallback of having the political party in power at the time (so currently the Liberals) pay for the PM's spouse's office. Historically the parties player greater roles in funding and providing support to politicians in charge, and that way it would eliminate the specter of outside influence.
posted by sardonyx at 6:33 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sardonyx at 6:33 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I do think SOME Canadians have been expressing a desire to have the PM's office reflect a simpler time when Canada was less prominent on the world stage and the Commons was simply less powerful
I don't think so. And the Commons has been powerful, by design, since 1867. Constitutional monarchy doesn't mean what it looks like you think it means; neither of the queens (Victoria and Elizabeth) nor the kings we have had since Confederation have had any real power except "to be consulted, to advise, and to warn." Yes, there is Royal Assent for bills passed at both the provincial (via Lieutenants Governor) and federal levels, and theoretically the monarch or their representative could refuse to provide it. In practice, that has not and will not happen.
Nor has the Senate ever been particularly powerful. It may be modeled on the House of Lords, but it has less power than its UK counterpart, and any bills requiring supply must originate in the Commons.
because heads of government are just not as interesting or famous as they used to be (but for a few well-known monarchs)
Head of Government and Head of State are separate things in constitutional monarchies.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:34 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think so. And the Commons has been powerful, by design, since 1867. Constitutional monarchy doesn't mean what it looks like you think it means; neither of the queens (Victoria and Elizabeth) nor the kings we have had since Confederation have had any real power except "to be consulted, to advise, and to warn." Yes, there is Royal Assent for bills passed at both the provincial (via Lieutenants Governor) and federal levels, and theoretically the monarch or their representative could refuse to provide it. In practice, that has not and will not happen.
Nor has the Senate ever been particularly powerful. It may be modeled on the House of Lords, but it has less power than its UK counterpart, and any bills requiring supply must originate in the Commons.
because heads of government are just not as interesting or famous as they used to be (but for a few well-known monarchs)
Head of Government and Head of State are separate things in constitutional monarchies.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:34 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I do think SOME Canadians have been expressing a desire to have the PM's office reflect a simpler time when Canada was less prominent on the world stage and the Commons was simply less powerful, and Prime Ministers' needs were much simpler in terms of staff and security and travel, and PM's families needs could be met within existing social structures.
Not really. The Diefenbunker isn't exactly a thowback to a simpler, cheaper time.
The DEW line meant we were going to tell you nukes were on the way, just before going completely offline. You're welcome.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 6:38 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not really. The Diefenbunker isn't exactly a thowback to a simpler, cheaper time.
The DEW line meant we were going to tell you nukes were on the way, just before going completely offline. You're welcome.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 6:38 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
(as if it makes sense for them to be navigating the 417 vs. doing work that actually could benefit Canadians.)
Hey, if Rob Ford can do it.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 6:40 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hey, if Rob Ford can do it.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 6:40 PM on May 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
fffm, you're assigning me straw men I did not say and do not support. Makes it hard to respond. I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying I disagree with. Don't know what to say beyond that.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:44 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:44 PM on May 16, 2016
Has anyone in this thread who is opposed to the idea of providing a staff for the spouse of the PM said that this is about cost? (I admit, it's a long thread and I skipped a middle bit of the discussion, so maybe I missed it). If not, I think the people talking about how the cost is a pittance (and I agree, it is) are arguing with a straw man.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:46 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 6:46 PM on May 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Mod note: One deleted; fffm, this exchange seems to be going in circles and Eyebrows is stepping out, let's leave it and move on.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:56 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:56 PM on May 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
That is why there is all of this out-of-proportion brew-ha-ha.
Now, now. Nobody's laughing at your Labatt's there, buddy.
posted by rokusan at 6:58 PM on May 16, 2016
Now, now. Nobody's laughing at your Labatt's there, buddy.
posted by rokusan at 6:58 PM on May 16, 2016
Man, there's a lot of posturing ignorance floating around. I have several relatives who have held positions in Commonwealth governments, and fuck yes there are expectations for the spouse of a Premier, and when he has been unmarried/widowed the space has historically been filled by a daughter/relative just like happens in America. Of course historically it's been unpaid and largely invisible because it's women's work, which doesn't get pay or support or respect. It's wonderful to see so many people standing up for their right to be fundamentally ignorant of the expectations being placed on women and to use this ignorance for evidence that said expectations don't exist or at best should be ignored.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 7:13 PM on May 16, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by the agents of KAOS at 7:13 PM on May 16, 2016 [27 favorites]
Eyebrows McGee: The power of the Commons means that it will be made of powerful people, who will be increasingly chased by pomp and prestige and prosperity.
This presents another interesting contrast with American politics. Because party discipline is so much better here (presumably the result of the threat of confidence votes and immediate elections, though that doesn't seem to contribute to Aussie party discipline), we're much more likely to have Joe or Jenny from the block as MPs. Individual MPs can't leverage their individual votes the way that American representatives can, because if they try, they threaten to bring down the government. We also don't have elected province-wide offices like your Senators. Add those together, and the powerful individual with a fief of their own isn't a thing in Canadian politics the way it is in American politics.
But your centralizing thesis isn't completely off-base. Questionable money flows, the kind that swirl around powerful people, have been increasingly centred on the PMO, the one person who does have individual power. Adscam and the Mike Duffy bribery scandal, both of which helped bring down governments, were both centred on the PMO.
(You may laugh at the dollar amounts involved in both cases, especially since they're in Canadian Tire money.)
I think many Canadians would be okay with power flowing away from the PM, especially after Harper's intense centralization. I'd suggest you're incorrect that power would necessarily have to flow back to the Senate or the monarchy, neither of which has had much to do since World War One (and not much to do before that, either).
Like I know there's a bigger dog next door, but you're still one of the very biggest dogs on the block. You're going to get stuck with some of the big-country trappings.
A lot of those trappings are anti-democratic, and there's no particular reason to take them on. One of the great powers that elites have is to make you embarrassed. Your clothes aren't as nice. Your dinners aren't as nice. You don't tawk right, eh? If you want to be a part of the club, you need to be part of a different, better class of people.
Not to say that no Canadians are interested; in Toronto especially there's constant twittering about whether we're a "world class city" or not. But... ehn... it's not my thing.
I'd make a more detailed and on-point response, but I don't have a nanny available to put my daughter to bed... :-)
posted by clawsoon at 7:16 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
This presents another interesting contrast with American politics. Because party discipline is so much better here (presumably the result of the threat of confidence votes and immediate elections, though that doesn't seem to contribute to Aussie party discipline), we're much more likely to have Joe or Jenny from the block as MPs. Individual MPs can't leverage their individual votes the way that American representatives can, because if they try, they threaten to bring down the government. We also don't have elected province-wide offices like your Senators. Add those together, and the powerful individual with a fief of their own isn't a thing in Canadian politics the way it is in American politics.
But your centralizing thesis isn't completely off-base. Questionable money flows, the kind that swirl around powerful people, have been increasingly centred on the PMO, the one person who does have individual power. Adscam and the Mike Duffy bribery scandal, both of which helped bring down governments, were both centred on the PMO.
(You may laugh at the dollar amounts involved in both cases, especially since they're in Canadian Tire money.)
I think many Canadians would be okay with power flowing away from the PM, especially after Harper's intense centralization. I'd suggest you're incorrect that power would necessarily have to flow back to the Senate or the monarchy, neither of which has had much to do since World War One (and not much to do before that, either).
Like I know there's a bigger dog next door, but you're still one of the very biggest dogs on the block. You're going to get stuck with some of the big-country trappings.
A lot of those trappings are anti-democratic, and there's no particular reason to take them on. One of the great powers that elites have is to make you embarrassed. Your clothes aren't as nice. Your dinners aren't as nice. You don't tawk right, eh? If you want to be a part of the club, you need to be part of a different, better class of people.
Not to say that no Canadians are interested; in Toronto especially there's constant twittering about whether we're a "world class city" or not. But... ehn... it's not my thing.
I'd make a more detailed and on-point response, but I don't have a nanny available to put my daughter to bed... :-)
posted by clawsoon at 7:16 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Our first ladies typically have about 20 people working for their office.
I expect it's more like 200. And what a wonderful political system you have.
Michelle Obama has a staff of about 24. Nineteen people worked in Laura Bush's office, and 15 worked for Hillary Clinton when her husband was president.
I'm not saying that the U.S. political system isn't 10 kinds of fucked up, because it is. But what makes our system dysfunctional isn't the fact that someone with a great number of responsibilities (as ceremonial and/or symbolic as many of them are) has a staff to plan and carry out those duties.
posted by virago at 7:23 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
I expect it's more like 200. And what a wonderful political system you have.
Michelle Obama has a staff of about 24. Nineteen people worked in Laura Bush's office, and 15 worked for Hillary Clinton when her husband was president.
I'm not saying that the U.S. political system isn't 10 kinds of fucked up, because it is. But what makes our system dysfunctional isn't the fact that someone with a great number of responsibilities (as ceremonial and/or symbolic as many of them are) has a staff to plan and carry out those duties.
posted by virago at 7:23 PM on May 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Note: Double checked with factchecker.org, and apparently Hillary Clinton had 19 staff as first lady, and Laura Bush had at least 18.
posted by virago at 7:30 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by virago at 7:30 PM on May 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
A lot of this discussion reminds me of the birthday/holiday card discussion in the emotional labor thread. Like it or not, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau is now performing labor she would not have been performing were her husband not Prime Minister, and she isn't paid for it. But the discussion becomes "well she doesn't need to do that / that's not a big deal and she could just stop / she should do something else with her time / it would be a better world if people stopped expecting that / doing that."
posted by sallybrown at 7:37 PM on May 16, 2016 [47 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:37 PM on May 16, 2016 [47 favorites]
Except she was not married at the time.
Well there's your solution right there- require all Prime Minister's to have a divorce when taking office. Everybody happy!
Also, if you could just get the PM to move back in with their parents after taking office, that will also save a large amount of money-thousands of dollars! More suggestions to come!
posted by happyroach at 8:29 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well there's your solution right there- require all Prime Minister's to have a divorce when taking office. Everybody happy!
Also, if you could just get the PM to move back in with their parents after taking office, that will also save a large amount of money-thousands of dollars! More suggestions to come!
posted by happyroach at 8:29 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, for FEMALE spouses, at least...
posted by poffin boffin at 12:39 PM on May 16 [1 favorite +] [!]
Very interesting point! I'm forced to wonder where Kathleen Wynne's spouse has been, or ever been. Not looking to start a fight but I think it's an interesting conversation.
posted by raider at 8:41 PM on May 16, 2016
Here's one example of where Wynne's spouse has been.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:46 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by warriorqueen at 8:46 PM on May 16, 2016
TIL that WIkipedia has lists of spouses of national leaders. Here's the page for Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia and Category:Lists of spouses of national leaders
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:51 PM on May 16, 2016
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:51 PM on May 16, 2016
I'm not really obsessed with Wynne but I find it disturbing that her partner's getting thrown around as a way to negate Gregoire Trudeau's stated experience. I'm not quite sure how to articulate it but it just seems off.
Personally I don't know where I stand on the actual issue of how many staff the PM''s household should have, but I do know I'm a bit riled up at the way asking or stating challenges is discussed in the media and here, like it's this crazy crazy thing she just made up and it has nothing to do with her perhaps getting way more mail or having younger kids, or maybe just the older ways of doing things being outmoded.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:00 PM on May 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
Personally I don't know where I stand on the actual issue of how many staff the PM''s household should have, but I do know I'm a bit riled up at the way asking or stating challenges is discussed in the media and here, like it's this crazy crazy thing she just made up and it has nothing to do with her perhaps getting way more mail or having younger kids, or maybe just the older ways of doing things being outmoded.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:00 PM on May 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
The Trudeau household makes about 3 times what my household makes. Which to me does not seem that rich, considering all the crap that comes with that job. We are not rich, I can't even afford to hire someone to trim my hedges so there's no way I'd be able to hire full time staff. 2 nannies, big deal, the PM works more than 40 hours per week, it's a job that requires days, evenings, weekends, travel. Makes sense that you'd need 2 40-hour week nannies to cover the babysitting and childcare that needs to happen while you're at those state dinners and all that. And I do not go into a government office and demand that they justify their secretaries and every single little position in their office, so I am not about to demand that Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau justify this. I mean hey, she's creating jobs right? Do we really think that the 40-50k per year that this might cost the Canadian public is not worthwhile? Well, I don't anyways, there are way bigger things to worry about, as far as budgets go I can't believe this is even getting this much press.
posted by Hazelsmrf at 10:13 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Hazelsmrf at 10:13 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
lol no that... no. That's like saying most US conservatives hate Reagan. It's just not a thing. Liberals and NDP hate Mulroney because he was objectively awful for the country.
I'm not sure if that's an objective fact (Free Trade was good for Canada as a whole; Mulroney was the last government to successfully update our armed forces following the 1988 White Paper; trying to figure out a way to get Quebec to sign the Constitution through Meech Lake and Charlottetown was good).
And Mulroney is not a "Reaganesque" figure to Canadian conservatives. You'll recall that the PC's were wiped out in the 1992 election, with Reform taking their place. Reform eventually got into power by forming a coalition with Mike Duffy conservatives, right? Mulroney's Red Tories were rooted out of the party.
So I think we can agree that everyone (except for me) hates the Mulroney name :)
posted by My Dad at 10:43 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure if that's an objective fact (Free Trade was good for Canada as a whole; Mulroney was the last government to successfully update our armed forces following the 1988 White Paper; trying to figure out a way to get Quebec to sign the Constitution through Meech Lake and Charlottetown was good).
And Mulroney is not a "Reaganesque" figure to Canadian conservatives. You'll recall that the PC's were wiped out in the 1992 election, with Reform taking their place. Reform eventually got into power by forming a coalition with Mike Duffy conservatives, right? Mulroney's Red Tories were rooted out of the party.
So I think we can agree that everyone (except for me) hates the Mulroney name :)
posted by My Dad at 10:43 PM on May 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
But what makes our system dysfunctional isn't the fact that someone with a great number of responsibilities (as ceremonial and/or symbolic as many of them are) has a staff to plan and carry out those duties.
Laura Bush having 19 staff to answer her emails is to many people quite a potent symbol of how out of touch these people are, much like Obama flying that ridiculous ten-tonne car all over the world.
The Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in the UK, Corbyn, is famous for having put in the lowest expenses claim of all 650 MPs (although once he did claim £7.90 for a printer cartridge), takes the bus, and is a tireless activist as well, so other ways of managing power and accountability are possible.
posted by Coda Tronca at 12:35 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Laura Bush having 19 staff to answer her emails is to many people quite a potent symbol of how out of touch these people are, much like Obama flying that ridiculous ten-tonne car all over the world.
The Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in the UK, Corbyn, is famous for having put in the lowest expenses claim of all 650 MPs (although once he did claim £7.90 for a printer cartridge), takes the bus, and is a tireless activist as well, so other ways of managing power and accountability are possible.
posted by Coda Tronca at 12:35 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
feckless fecal fear mongering: "It seems a bit facile to suggest Gregoire Trudeau could just keep working at this point. There's really no way for her to do so. Security is an obvious huge concern, for one."Ctrl-F "Merkel". Nothing on this page.
Joachim Sauer may participate in official state dinners, but I can assure you that he's also holding down a day job.
posted by brokkr at 2:00 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in the UK, Corbyn, is famous for having put in the lowest expenses claim of all 650 MPs (although once he did claim £7.90 for a printer cartridge), takes the bus, and is a tireless activist as well, so other ways of managing power and accountability are possible.
I think you'll find that even Jeremy Corbyn spent £143,918.84 on staffing costs in 2014-2015, which is close to the budget maximum of £145,500.00.
He also spent £15,188.02 on office costs, well below the budget maximum of £25,900.00.
It is disingenuous to compare the staffing and office costs of an MP, responsible for a single constituency, to the staffing and office costs of the FLOTUS. The two positions are not comparable.
It's also disingenuous to imply that he doesn't have any staffing costs at all because he takes the bus, and that therefore the Canadian PM's wife (who is not an MP or elected official) should have no staffing costs at all. The two positions are not comparable.
What is happening is that the Canadian PM's wife is being asked to carry out work by various charities, because of her position as the Canadian PM's wife, and is willing to do it in exchange for office and staffing costs. Her asking for public funding to do the work is no more unreasonable than her being asked by the public to do the work.
posted by tel3path at 3:43 AM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
I think you'll find that even Jeremy Corbyn spent £143,918.84 on staffing costs in 2014-2015, which is close to the budget maximum of £145,500.00.
He also spent £15,188.02 on office costs, well below the budget maximum of £25,900.00.
It is disingenuous to compare the staffing and office costs of an MP, responsible for a single constituency, to the staffing and office costs of the FLOTUS. The two positions are not comparable.
It's also disingenuous to imply that he doesn't have any staffing costs at all because he takes the bus, and that therefore the Canadian PM's wife (who is not an MP or elected official) should have no staffing costs at all. The two positions are not comparable.
What is happening is that the Canadian PM's wife is being asked to carry out work by various charities, because of her position as the Canadian PM's wife, and is willing to do it in exchange for office and staffing costs. Her asking for public funding to do the work is no more unreasonable than her being asked by the public to do the work.
posted by tel3path at 3:43 AM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
PM's wife is being asked to carry out work by various charities... Her asking for public funding to do the work is no more unreasonable than her being asked by the public to do the work.
Charity doesn't work like this for anyone I know!
posted by Coda Tronca at 4:30 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Charity doesn't work like this for anyone I know!
posted by Coda Tronca at 4:30 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not the amount of money - even a $50 item that I don't want is too much. $150,000 is an enormous amount to pay for something I don't value.
What is happening is that the Canadian PM's wife is being asked to carry out work by various charities, because of her position as the Canadian PM's wife her persona. (And the media feeding that persona by wanting her to be "our Michelle.")
posted by St. Peepsburg at 4:42 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
What is happening is that the Canadian PM's wife is being asked to carry out work by various charities, because of
posted by St. Peepsburg at 4:42 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
A lot of this discussion reminds me of the birthday/holiday card discussion in the emotional labor thread.
Me too, but in a different way. It makes me realize even more how cultural all these expectations are, and it bothers me a bit that we have quite a few Americans in this thread explaining what is expected of a woman who is not American. I never understood the birthday/holiday card thing in the emotional labor thread (while I did relate to all the childcare related topics). If you dislike sending birthday cards, don't send them. I know that that opinion got shot down very hard in emotional labor related topics, so I never voiced it because I realize my opinion really is intertwined with culture and it's easy for me to say to someone who lives in a culture that looks superficially similar but is still very different to just stop sending those cards. But I sometimes got the feeling that some people say that this custom is not just a custom, but How Things Should Be, and I'm seeing the same thing here, with the custom of having a First Lady who does all kinds of semi-official charity stuff, and that's strange to me.
FWIW, I live in a country with a PM who is single, and there absolutely isn't a sister or other woman who does First Lady like tasks. Our previous PM (from 2002-2010) had a wife who had a job as a professor at a university. (And while I was double checking that I noticed that the Dutch Wikipedia entry for our Prime Ministers does not mention spouses in the "info box" on the right, just the information that is relevant to their political career, whereas the English Wikipedia entry for our Dutch Prime Ministers does have a special entry for "spouse" and "children" in that space.)
posted by blub at 5:18 AM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
I've seen a lot of complaints about them having two nannies and the cost which is apparently around 100,000 a year so around 50,000 each. The hourly wage is 15 - 20 and hour during the day and less at night.
My first thought. Oh cool, we're actually paying them a living wage. It should be like this! Childcare is a notoriously undervalued and paid skill. They aren't making big bucks though that's for sure.
I don't know how the work hours are split up between the two but it seems to me that the nanny need is likely not just a 9 - 5, 5 day a week and always predictable set number of hours and is also more then likely a lot more then a 40 hour a week need. It's a two person job if we want to follow good labor practices, something which nanny work world is not always the best at following.
They also don't qualify for overtime apparently, get full benefits and 3 weeks of paid vacation. I also expect they get regular days off as well.
I'm cool with the cost. It's not expensive like a lot of people are complaining about. It's just paying for two people to have living wage jobs with decent working conditions. This is what fair jobs cost these days!
Welcome to 2016.
The PMs office is always allocated some funds for staff and assistance. This particular PM happens to have a young family and has chosen to use some of those funds in this way.
posted by Jalliah at 5:32 AM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
My first thought. Oh cool, we're actually paying them a living wage. It should be like this! Childcare is a notoriously undervalued and paid skill. They aren't making big bucks though that's for sure.
I don't know how the work hours are split up between the two but it seems to me that the nanny need is likely not just a 9 - 5, 5 day a week and always predictable set number of hours and is also more then likely a lot more then a 40 hour a week need. It's a two person job if we want to follow good labor practices, something which nanny work world is not always the best at following.
They also don't qualify for overtime apparently, get full benefits and 3 weeks of paid vacation. I also expect they get regular days off as well.
I'm cool with the cost. It's not expensive like a lot of people are complaining about. It's just paying for two people to have living wage jobs with decent working conditions. This is what fair jobs cost these days!
Welcome to 2016.
The PMs office is always allocated some funds for staff and assistance. This particular PM happens to have a young family and has chosen to use some of those funds in this way.
posted by Jalliah at 5:32 AM on May 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
This pretty much sums up my take on the issue (would not use the word "ladies", tho)
posted by My Dad at 6:08 AM on May 17, 2016
posted by My Dad at 6:08 AM on May 17, 2016
A note on costing: if she goes the PS route, she'd likely be assigned a mid-level or senior officer grade, PM-03/04, which tops at 70k. With a 1.3 factor for costs and overhead, 90k or so. If she choses to call them political staffers (which arguably she could do), they'd be covered under the rules for aides and could be a bit less. Not a tonne of money either way.
She could get the party to cover it, the easy way out, but these should be staffers and should be paid for by the government, in my view. It's commensurate with the US levels (~10% = two people) and still one fewer than what Mila Mulroney had.
There are people who think PMs should fly exclusively coach and should stay in Super 8 motels.
I do agree that this is where a lot of the wingnut fuckery is coming from, as well as the usual right-wing misogyny. However, Canada also suffers strongly from tall-poppy syndrome. Justin Trudeau has already been painted as Le Dauphin by the Harperites. This fits the right-wingers political narrative perfectly: shoot those who appear to be "putting on airs". Crab-bucketing has always been a national blood sport, especially for prominent women. When it's being exploited for political ends, especially when it's allowed and endorsed by the right wing, it can get very nasty.
posted by bonehead at 6:33 AM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
She could get the party to cover it, the easy way out, but these should be staffers and should be paid for by the government, in my view. It's commensurate with the US levels (~10% = two people) and still one fewer than what Mila Mulroney had.
There are people who think PMs should fly exclusively coach and should stay in Super 8 motels.
I do agree that this is where a lot of the wingnut fuckery is coming from, as well as the usual right-wing misogyny. However, Canada also suffers strongly from tall-poppy syndrome. Justin Trudeau has already been painted as Le Dauphin by the Harperites. This fits the right-wingers political narrative perfectly: shoot those who appear to be "putting on airs". Crab-bucketing has always been a national blood sport, especially for prominent women. When it's being exploited for political ends, especially when it's allowed and endorsed by the right wing, it can get very nasty.
posted by bonehead at 6:33 AM on May 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
There are people who think PMs should fly exclusively coach and should stay in Super 8 motels.
It would be a start.
posted by Coda Tronca at 7:46 AM on May 17, 2016
It would be a start.
posted by Coda Tronca at 7:46 AM on May 17, 2016
Wow, I am gobsmacked by this thread.
I guess I shouldn't be though as it is always the simple questions Canadians wrestle with that reveal the most about us. This one is no different. All this conversation needs to be completely Canadian is to have Quebec complaining she isn’t speaking enough French and everybody else complaining she speaks too much French. Since the conversation is already petty, cheap, partisan and misogynistic why not go all the way be racist as well?
When Justin Trudeau became party leader it was pretty clear that Sophie was not going to be a “quiet stay-at-home mum.” They are very clearly a team and while she is an extension of the Trudeau brand & identity she is also remarkably her own person with her own opinions and not some media constructed personality. She is definitely media friendly though which makes her stand out compared to the previous spouses. Regardless though if she would like to use her position as the Prime Minister’s spouse to be more than a prop for partisan politics and engage with Canadians and do some good for our country I will not hold that against her. Three staffers will hardly break the backs of poor Canadians nor is it evidence of a vast Laurentian elite conspiracy hellbent on undermining the tax dollars of hard working Canadians. Yes, on a personal level 150K (or even 300k) is a lot of money sure but on a governmental level, which is what this would be, it really isn’t. It is a pittance. In fact I'd think it was better value for our money then say the millions spent on remembering the war of 1812 or Harper's personal hair dresser (look at that hair!). If people are really bothered by the amount spent on her staffers they probably shouldn’t look into how the Canadian government spends its money as their heads will explode, like in Scanners (speaking of our tax dollars...)
I think Neil Macdonald, in the above linked article, has got it right regarding our love of hacking at the tall poppies because that’s really what this looks like. We should be better than this and find an actual issue to get worked up about.
posted by Ashwagandha at 8:17 AM on May 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
I guess I shouldn't be though as it is always the simple questions Canadians wrestle with that reveal the most about us. This one is no different. All this conversation needs to be completely Canadian is to have Quebec complaining she isn’t speaking enough French and everybody else complaining she speaks too much French. Since the conversation is already petty, cheap, partisan and misogynistic why not go all the way be racist as well?
When Justin Trudeau became party leader it was pretty clear that Sophie was not going to be a “quiet stay-at-home mum.” They are very clearly a team and while she is an extension of the Trudeau brand & identity she is also remarkably her own person with her own opinions and not some media constructed personality. She is definitely media friendly though which makes her stand out compared to the previous spouses. Regardless though if she would like to use her position as the Prime Minister’s spouse to be more than a prop for partisan politics and engage with Canadians and do some good for our country I will not hold that against her. Three staffers will hardly break the backs of poor Canadians nor is it evidence of a vast Laurentian elite conspiracy hellbent on undermining the tax dollars of hard working Canadians. Yes, on a personal level 150K (or even 300k) is a lot of money sure but on a governmental level, which is what this would be, it really isn’t. It is a pittance. In fact I'd think it was better value for our money then say the millions spent on remembering the war of 1812 or Harper's personal hair dresser (look at that hair!). If people are really bothered by the amount spent on her staffers they probably shouldn’t look into how the Canadian government spends its money as their heads will explode, like in Scanners (speaking of our tax dollars...)
I think Neil Macdonald, in the above linked article, has got it right regarding our love of hacking at the tall poppies because that’s really what this looks like. We should be better than this and find an actual issue to get worked up about.
posted by Ashwagandha at 8:17 AM on May 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
Of all the people who should've known what they were getting into by running for Prime Minister (including the increased demands on the spouse and kids), Justin *Trudeau* should've had some clue. So I think a lot of the objection to the idea of Ms. Gregoire-Trudeau needing extra help comes from people who think it's a case of the Trudeaus being entitled and privileged (a perception that already existed before this controversy.) (MetaFilter will appreciate that a synonym for "Tall poppy" is "special snowflake". And the "tall poppy" defense that's out there only reinforces this perception - except to me, all I can think is that when one plant grows taller than others, it's usually because that plant is taking badly needed nutrients from other plants in the same ecosystem.)
As for the charge that this is about sexism, that's probably true for a lot of people commenting. But at the same time, when Justin Trudeau is defending arms sales to repressive, anti-woman regimes, some of his lustre as a "feminist" rubs off and I'm inclined to trust long-time feminist activist Niki Ashton a lot more in that regard than Mr. "Because it's 2015" who appears to think feminist principles only applies within the borders of western nations.
I also think many are objecting because the Liberals have proposed national childcare strategies in their 1993 Red Book, in 1997, in 2000, and again in 2004 but failed to implement a single funded space. (The line the NDP used in the last federal election was "A child born when the Liberals first promised national childcare would be finished University now..")
Obviously, there are vastly different levels of spending between one personal assistant and a new national childcare strategy. But it still strikes many as hypocritical that the Liberals have chosen not to help Canada's mothers multiple times over the past 20+ years. But now, a working mother, struggling with the demands of her husband's job and her related obligations is asking for help and people are leaping up to say she deserves it?
Personally, I know too many women who work harder for much less and would benefit from government support a lot more than Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau. Are any of them married to the Prime Minister? Of course not. But is raising two boys while working 60-hours a week cleaning houses after a divorce harder than giving a bunch of keynote speeches at charity galas? Is working multiple part-time jobs while leaving the kids with your in-laws and having to take the bus everywhere you go more draining than eating another bland meal on the rubber chicken circuit?
Or at the other end of the spectrum, a doctor I know works as many hours as Trudeau, earns about the same as Trudeau and has a spouse who has numerous social obligations that takes her away from their two kids. Do they get any taxpayer funded staff? Of course not - his nanny and any other support staff they need comes out of their own pocket.
I'm not opposed to working mother Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau having the support she needs. But when the Liberals find a way to better help the rest of Canada's mothers - poor, middle class and yes, even the privileged and wealthy - maybe I'll be more sympathetic.
posted by Jaybo at 8:17 AM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
As for the charge that this is about sexism, that's probably true for a lot of people commenting. But at the same time, when Justin Trudeau is defending arms sales to repressive, anti-woman regimes, some of his lustre as a "feminist" rubs off and I'm inclined to trust long-time feminist activist Niki Ashton a lot more in that regard than Mr. "Because it's 2015" who appears to think feminist principles only applies within the borders of western nations.
I also think many are objecting because the Liberals have proposed national childcare strategies in their 1993 Red Book, in 1997, in 2000, and again in 2004 but failed to implement a single funded space. (The line the NDP used in the last federal election was "A child born when the Liberals first promised national childcare would be finished University now..")
Obviously, there are vastly different levels of spending between one personal assistant and a new national childcare strategy. But it still strikes many as hypocritical that the Liberals have chosen not to help Canada's mothers multiple times over the past 20+ years. But now, a working mother, struggling with the demands of her husband's job and her related obligations is asking for help and people are leaping up to say she deserves it?
Personally, I know too many women who work harder for much less and would benefit from government support a lot more than Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau. Are any of them married to the Prime Minister? Of course not. But is raising two boys while working 60-hours a week cleaning houses after a divorce harder than giving a bunch of keynote speeches at charity galas? Is working multiple part-time jobs while leaving the kids with your in-laws and having to take the bus everywhere you go more draining than eating another bland meal on the rubber chicken circuit?
Or at the other end of the spectrum, a doctor I know works as many hours as Trudeau, earns about the same as Trudeau and has a spouse who has numerous social obligations that takes her away from their two kids. Do they get any taxpayer funded staff? Of course not - his nanny and any other support staff they need comes out of their own pocket.
I'm not opposed to working mother Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau having the support she needs. But when the Liberals find a way to better help the rest of Canada's mothers - poor, middle class and yes, even the privileged and wealthy - maybe I'll be more sympathetic.
posted by Jaybo at 8:17 AM on May 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Charity doesn't work like this for anyone I know!
Probably because you don't know the spouses of people working at the highest level of government. Gregoire Trudeau is in a pretty weird and unique place, socially.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:19 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Probably because you don't know the spouses of people working at the highest level of government. Gregoire Trudeau is in a pretty weird and unique place, socially.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:19 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
This thread has got me looking back more at the Mulroney years, and thinking more about tall-poppy syndrome.
Mulroney turned out to be incredibly corrupt. Take a read through On The Take if you want to get a sense of it. One moving van when they moved in; seventy-two when they moved out, and that didn't include the rugs and mirrors of uncertain provenance that they sold back to the NCC for $150K. Patronage appointments (anybody remember when Mila's hairdresser was appointed to the Federal Business Development Bank, one of hundreds of favours handed out?) and sleazy money were everywhere.
He's the only former Prime Minister known to have accepted an actual brown envelope stuffed with cash, though that came after he left office. (I would've said "literal brown envelope", but since "literal" is the new "metaphorical", I guess "actual" has to be the new "literal". But I digress...)
One of the things that should have clued us in was the fact that he and his family wanted to live beyond their Prime Ministerial means. They wanted to be tall poppies, and that can be expensive. A lot of the sleazy money flowing around had to flow directly to them in order for them to maintain their desired tall-poppy lifestyle.
And maybe that history is part of what makes some of us extra-sensitive to a Prime Minister and family who feel that the PM's salary isn't enough to maintain the life they want to have. It feels like a possible tell. They feel they don't have enough money; how long before the sleazy money sees the disappointment in their eyes and devises ways to cheer them up? Oh God, are we going to end up with another Mulroney?
Part of this goes back to the debate about whether the Prime Minister should be a humble servant of the people, or whether the PM should be an illustrious representative of a great nation. There's growing support for "illustrious representative", someone - better, a couple! - whose great style and taste and commitment to wonderful causes would do us proud on the world stage, and you need tall poppies for that and you need them to be properly funded for that role. But there are still more of us who prefer "humble servant", I think, and $300K sounds like plenty for that job.
This is a small amount of money in the grand scheme of things. That doesn't mean it's an unimportant issue though, no matter which side of it you're on. The way that Grégoire Trudeau has been treated as a woman is a real issue; what symbolic role we want our Prime Minister to have is also a real issue.
posted by clawsoon at 8:23 AM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
Mulroney turned out to be incredibly corrupt. Take a read through On The Take if you want to get a sense of it. One moving van when they moved in; seventy-two when they moved out, and that didn't include the rugs and mirrors of uncertain provenance that they sold back to the NCC for $150K. Patronage appointments (anybody remember when Mila's hairdresser was appointed to the Federal Business Development Bank, one of hundreds of favours handed out?) and sleazy money were everywhere.
He's the only former Prime Minister known to have accepted an actual brown envelope stuffed with cash, though that came after he left office. (I would've said "literal brown envelope", but since "literal" is the new "metaphorical", I guess "actual" has to be the new "literal". But I digress...)
One of the things that should have clued us in was the fact that he and his family wanted to live beyond their Prime Ministerial means. They wanted to be tall poppies, and that can be expensive. A lot of the sleazy money flowing around had to flow directly to them in order for them to maintain their desired tall-poppy lifestyle.
And maybe that history is part of what makes some of us extra-sensitive to a Prime Minister and family who feel that the PM's salary isn't enough to maintain the life they want to have. It feels like a possible tell. They feel they don't have enough money; how long before the sleazy money sees the disappointment in their eyes and devises ways to cheer them up? Oh God, are we going to end up with another Mulroney?
Part of this goes back to the debate about whether the Prime Minister should be a humble servant of the people, or whether the PM should be an illustrious representative of a great nation. There's growing support for "illustrious representative", someone - better, a couple! - whose great style and taste and commitment to wonderful causes would do us proud on the world stage, and you need tall poppies for that and you need them to be properly funded for that role. But there are still more of us who prefer "humble servant", I think, and $300K sounds like plenty for that job.
This is a small amount of money in the grand scheme of things. That doesn't mean it's an unimportant issue though, no matter which side of it you're on. The way that Grégoire Trudeau has been treated as a woman is a real issue; what symbolic role we want our Prime Minister to have is also a real issue.
posted by clawsoon at 8:23 AM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
Probably because you don't know the spouses of people working at the highest level of government.
The concept of charity is actually different if you're a high level person? Anyway you have no idea who I know or don't know personally - I brought up Corbyn for a reason.
a doctor I know works as many hours as Trudeau, earns about the same as Trudeau and has a spouse who has numerous social obligations that takes her away from their two kids. Do they get any taxpayer funded staff? Of course not
This is the same observation as that Trudeau is the only guy in Canada making 340k who gets his childcare paid for.
posted by Coda Tronca at 8:28 AM on May 17, 2016
The concept of charity is actually different if you're a high level person? Anyway you have no idea who I know or don't know personally - I brought up Corbyn for a reason.
a doctor I know works as many hours as Trudeau, earns about the same as Trudeau and has a spouse who has numerous social obligations that takes her away from their two kids. Do they get any taxpayer funded staff? Of course not
This is the same observation as that Trudeau is the only guy in Canada making 340k who gets his childcare paid for.
posted by Coda Tronca at 8:28 AM on May 17, 2016
The concept of charity is actually different if you're a high level person?
No, but the thread has already covered this point pretty extensively.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:31 AM on May 17, 2016
No, but the thread has already covered this point pretty extensively.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:31 AM on May 17, 2016
I'm not opposed to working mother Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau having the support she needs. But when the Liberals find a way to better help the rest of Canada's mothers - poor, middle class and yes, even the privileged and wealthy - maybe I'll be more sympathetic.
Crab-bucketing happens on the left as well as the right.
posted by bonehead at 8:32 AM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
Crab-bucketing happens on the left as well as the right.
posted by bonehead at 8:32 AM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
I just can't believe that this is an actual story, an actual issue for Canadians.
Instead of discussing any number of vastly more important things -- how to solve Attawapiskat, what still needs to happen to C-51, whether to piss off Quebec by building Energy East or to piss off Alberta by not building it -- the media is talking about two staffers sorta kinda related to the PMO's office, and whether that's legit or not.
Jesus. The whole niquab business only involved two people as well, and while that's also important, like Sophie needing staffers, on the grand scale? Perhaps the resources of the federal government and public discourse could be directed to more substantive problems? Why are we feeding this media controversy? Why are we doing this again?
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:39 AM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Instead of discussing any number of vastly more important things -- how to solve Attawapiskat, what still needs to happen to C-51, whether to piss off Quebec by building Energy East or to piss off Alberta by not building it -- the media is talking about two staffers sorta kinda related to the PMO's office, and whether that's legit or not.
Jesus. The whole niquab business only involved two people as well, and while that's also important, like Sophie needing staffers, on the grand scale? Perhaps the resources of the federal government and public discourse could be directed to more substantive problems? Why are we feeding this media controversy? Why are we doing this again?
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:39 AM on May 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
some of us extra-sensitive to a Prime Minister and family who feel that the PM's salary isn't enough to maintain the life they want to have.
In the UK most of us who voted for Tony Blair in 1997 are pretty sensitive to this.
posted by Coda Tronca at 8:39 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
In the UK most of us who voted for Tony Blair in 1997 are pretty sensitive to this.
posted by Coda Tronca at 8:39 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow, I am gobsmacked by this thread.
I guess I shouldn't be though as it is always the simple questions Canadians wrestle with that reveal the most about us. This one is no different. All this conversation needs to be completely Canadian is to have Quebec complaining she isn’t speaking enough French and everybody else complaining she speaks too much French. Since the conversation is already petty, cheap, partisan and misogynistic why not go all the way be racist as well?
As a non Canadian I was gobsmacked too but quiet about it - glad to see this.
posted by zutalors! at 8:54 AM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's also true that women who ask for more in Canadian politics get a lot more flack for it, and I don't mean to minimize that. Would the $16 orange juice have been an issue if the cabinet minister was a man? Ralph Klein and Alison Redford in Alberta both took similar advantage of perks; the excessive private jet flights were hardly (never?) mentioned during Klein's term but blew up into a huge scandal under Redford. There have been plenty of teflon male politicians in Canada who stay popular no matter the scandal, but I suspect it'll be a long time before a woman gets the same treatment.
posted by clawsoon at 8:55 AM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 8:55 AM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Perhaps the resources of the federal government and public discourse could be directed to more substantive problems? Why are we feeding this media controversy? Why are we doing this again?
Those are excellent questions and the same ones I ask myself. We have a myriad of issues to deal with (the woeful treatment of First Nations people, the environment, pipelines or frankly anything actually important to the future of our country) but it is easier to tear down the prime minister's wife instead of dealing with them. I do think this discussion speaks volumes about us as a culture & our identity and if I were working on graduate degree in the social sciences I'd definitely come up with a thesis that explored this.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:01 AM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Those are excellent questions and the same ones I ask myself. We have a myriad of issues to deal with (the woeful treatment of First Nations people, the environment, pipelines or frankly anything actually important to the future of our country) but it is easier to tear down the prime minister's wife instead of dealing with them. I do think this discussion speaks volumes about us as a culture & our identity and if I were working on graduate degree in the social sciences I'd definitely come up with a thesis that explored this.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:01 AM on May 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Well, for FEMALE spouses, at least.
Increasingly I think, it's going to be expected of the males spouses too. I think this is part of the current generational change as the baby boomers leave politics. Rona Ambrose (opposition leader) and her partner J.P. Veitch:
“People think it’s easy and you just come here [as an MP],” says Veitch. “But it’s not easy. For the women, my understanding, it’s about a 50 per cent divorce rate. A lot of men don’t come and support their spouses. We’re not socialized that way where the men are used to hanging out in the background.” Ambrose agrees political life is not easy for couples. “Being in politics is a lonely life, but I think being the spouse of a politician is even lonelier.
“It’s interesting. He has all these plans to really include them and make sure they have a place to go or have functions of their own. I think that’s great. A big part of my job is to entertain stakeholders and staff and members of Parliament,” says Ambrose. “That’s important in a period of transition that we have really strong, positive caucus relations.” Veitch also wants Stornoway to be more open. “It’s a gorgeous building. It’s not our house. We are the lucky ones who get to stay here. Everybody is welcome.”
posted by bonehead at 9:14 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Increasingly I think, it's going to be expected of the males spouses too. I think this is part of the current generational change as the baby boomers leave politics. Rona Ambrose (opposition leader) and her partner J.P. Veitch:
“People think it’s easy and you just come here [as an MP],” says Veitch. “But it’s not easy. For the women, my understanding, it’s about a 50 per cent divorce rate. A lot of men don’t come and support their spouses. We’re not socialized that way where the men are used to hanging out in the background.” Ambrose agrees political life is not easy for couples. “Being in politics is a lonely life, but I think being the spouse of a politician is even lonelier.
“It’s interesting. He has all these plans to really include them and make sure they have a place to go or have functions of their own. I think that’s great. A big part of my job is to entertain stakeholders and staff and members of Parliament,” says Ambrose. “That’s important in a period of transition that we have really strong, positive caucus relations.” Veitch also wants Stornoway to be more open. “It’s a gorgeous building. It’s not our house. We are the lucky ones who get to stay here. Everybody is welcome.”
posted by bonehead at 9:14 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's also true that women who ask for more in Canadian politics get a lot more flack for it, and I don't mean to minimize that. Would the $16 orange juice have been an issue if the cabinet minister was a man?
Not disputing the argument, but that's not a great example; the OJ was the cherry on a shit sundae of a career. The Roy Orbison jokes that followed... not so great*.
*Tho I'd be lying if I said they didn't get a chuckle out of me, tbh.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:18 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not disputing the argument, but that's not a great example; the OJ was the cherry on a shit sundae of a career. The Roy Orbison jokes that followed... not so great*.
*Tho I'd be lying if I said they didn't get a chuckle out of me, tbh.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:18 AM on May 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, Bev Oda was a pretty bad minister, no argument, and the OJ scandal was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. But there was a number of bad to terrible male ministers under Harper who were not "encouraged" to resign as Oda was. For instance her replacement as Minister of International Cooperation Julian Fantino who did far more than charge a $16 glass of juice to the taxpayers of Canada.
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:56 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:56 AM on May 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Perhaps the resources of the federal government and public discourse could be directed to more substantive problems? Why are we feeding this media controversy? Why are we doing this again?
I hear you, and there is an element of the opposition/the media stoking an outrage fire because this is one that is (a) simple to understand and (b) emotionally charged for many, as opposed to things like Attawapiskat or C-51 or Syria/Isis or everything else we need to have substantive discussions on.
That being said, my home province has just gotten around to figuring out that maybe a maternity leave policy is necessary for sitting members of government, so I do think there is a need for discussion on the demands and expectations of public life in government, how it impacts everyone involved (including the spouses) and are there some reasonable accommodations that can go with it, particularly when the role involved is larger than the average elected member (for example, Leader of the Opposition, Prime Minister, Cabinet).
And maybe the answer is that the respective political parties sort these things out with the leaders they nominate, maybe there's some public money available, or maybe there is none of that. But I think it would be good to have the discussion, I just wish it could get to a higher level than arguing about Sophie and Justin.
posted by nubs at 12:16 PM on May 17, 2016
I hear you, and there is an element of the opposition/the media stoking an outrage fire because this is one that is (a) simple to understand and (b) emotionally charged for many, as opposed to things like Attawapiskat or C-51 or Syria/Isis or everything else we need to have substantive discussions on.
That being said, my home province has just gotten around to figuring out that maybe a maternity leave policy is necessary for sitting members of government, so I do think there is a need for discussion on the demands and expectations of public life in government, how it impacts everyone involved (including the spouses) and are there some reasonable accommodations that can go with it, particularly when the role involved is larger than the average elected member (for example, Leader of the Opposition, Prime Minister, Cabinet).
And maybe the answer is that the respective political parties sort these things out with the leaders they nominate, maybe there's some public money available, or maybe there is none of that. But I think it would be good to have the discussion, I just wish it could get to a higher level than arguing about Sophie and Justin.
posted by nubs at 12:16 PM on May 17, 2016
An interesting point regarding the PM's salary: it's a 24/7 job. You're on call the entire time. Which works out to about $38/hr.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:17 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:17 PM on May 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Female political spouses are good examaples when talking about the uncompensated invisible labor forced on women.
posted by humanfont at 1:08 PM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 1:08 PM on May 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
So, something occurred to me this morning which could help explain the difference between the FLOTUS and Ms Trudeau (and even more the even lesser known spouses of PMs of countries like Germany, Netherlands and Denmark): Michelle Obama is married to the head of state. The others are not. The Canadian equivalent of Michelle Obama is Prince Philip, who you (well, someone) very much pay to play his part in diplomatic dinners and all that ornamental stuff.
Alternately you can argue that this function is devolved to Sharon Johnston, who has an actual official position - she's the Viceregal consort of Canada.
posted by brokkr at 12:48 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Alternately you can argue that this function is devolved to Sharon Johnston, who has an actual official position - she's the Viceregal consort of Canada.
posted by brokkr at 12:48 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The distinction though is that Mrs. Trudeau isn't asking to be paid, she's asking for the resources to pay other people.
I'm thinking of the time I was supposed to be changing my job duties at a multinational company, to something involving a specialist proprietary skill with all relevant knowledge sealed behind a paywall. I asked for training. I got an ostensible yes (never actually received the training though).
They proceeded to jerk me around in ways not worth recounting here, suffice it to say it was making it impossible for me to do my job. I protested.
My manager objected by invoking the training: "But tel3path, they're spending all this money on you!"
Me: "Yes, but it's not a present! They came to me, I didn't go to them"
Male coworker: "What do you expect, a trip to Disneyland?"
Me: "No, I expect a legitimate business expense, incurred as a direct result of management's decision to change my job duties, to be treated as a legitimate business expense and not as a favour for which I should be grateful and beholden"
Manager: crickets
They went on dangling the carrot of "but you'll be going on your training soon!!!" for over a year, then gave me a form with a date range of five days to choose from for a five-day training course, and those were the exact five days that I'd notified them six months earlier that I wouldn't be able to do it. Manager took the forms back promising to put them through the approval process again to change the dates, and that was the last that was ever said about my receiving training.
posted by tel3path at 2:56 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm thinking of the time I was supposed to be changing my job duties at a multinational company, to something involving a specialist proprietary skill with all relevant knowledge sealed behind a paywall. I asked for training. I got an ostensible yes (never actually received the training though).
They proceeded to jerk me around in ways not worth recounting here, suffice it to say it was making it impossible for me to do my job. I protested.
My manager objected by invoking the training: "But tel3path, they're spending all this money on you!"
Me: "Yes, but it's not a present! They came to me, I didn't go to them"
Male coworker: "What do you expect, a trip to Disneyland?"
Me: "No, I expect a legitimate business expense, incurred as a direct result of management's decision to change my job duties, to be treated as a legitimate business expense and not as a favour for which I should be grateful and beholden"
Manager: crickets
They went on dangling the carrot of "but you'll be going on your training soon!!!" for over a year, then gave me a form with a date range of five days to choose from for a five-day training course, and those were the exact five days that I'd notified them six months earlier that I wouldn't be able to do it. Manager took the forms back promising to put them through the approval process again to change the dates, and that was the last that was ever said about my receiving training.
posted by tel3path at 2:56 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I should add that part of the problem was that they couldn't find a way to define my new job role, so how could they charge for expenses against it?
This is also why Isabella Blow "couldn't" be paid for the substantial creative consulting she did for a lot of major fashion companies - well, how do you describe what she did? Nobody knew! So how could she have a job title? And with no job title, she couldn't be paid!
posted by tel3path at 3:35 AM on May 18, 2016
This is also why Isabella Blow "couldn't" be paid for the substantial creative consulting she did for a lot of major fashion companies - well, how do you describe what she did? Nobody knew! So how could she have a job title? And with no job title, she couldn't be paid!
posted by tel3path at 3:35 AM on May 18, 2016
tel3path: and that was the last that was ever said about my receiving training.
Might've been for the best. When my mother completed her training as a librarian, the school superintendent regretfully informed her that her new certification put her into a lower pay grade, and they were sorry but they had to lower her salary.
posted by clawsoon at 4:54 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Might've been for the best. When my mother completed her training as a librarian, the school superintendent regretfully informed her that her new certification put her into a lower pay grade, and they were sorry but they had to lower her salary.
posted by clawsoon at 4:54 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the reason there has been objection is the Trudeaus have already demonstrated themselves to be peacocks and quite enjoying their newfound fame.
Even if Sophie's intentions are purely altruistic (and I believe they are, and not entitled), they can only blame themselves for bad PR. They sought to be over-exposed.
Of course the expense is peanuts, especially relative to the potential good. But you can't have it both ways, Justin and Sophie.
posted by raider at 5:35 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Even if Sophie's intentions are purely altruistic (and I believe they are, and not entitled), they can only blame themselves for bad PR. They sought to be over-exposed.
Of course the expense is peanuts, especially relative to the potential good. But you can't have it both ways, Justin and Sophie.
posted by raider at 5:35 PM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
« Older Let's go on with the show | Your children, and grandchildren, and therapists. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"She's so selfish and entitled!"
I point out she's using a fund established by former Conservative PM, Brian Mulroney, whose wife was exceptionally popular and had her own office and three staffers to help her.
"Well, she better not be charging for these appearances!"
She isn't.
"Well.... She should just be a stay-at-home mom anyway!"
A'ight, fuck you.
(Meanwhile, how much money was wasted determinining members of the senate maybe did or did not waste money?)
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:00 AM on May 16, 2016 [41 favorites]