Plaidneck

Remember Francis Fox



Back in the late 1970s a federal cabinet minister Francis Fox got into trouble.

He tried to assist a friend obtain an abortion. My memory is that the father’s signature was required, but that person wasn’t in the picture. Although Minister Fox was just a friend, he chose to be helpful and signed instead. He was caught.

Mr Fox resigned his position as a federal minister.

This was true parliamentary practice. Err, own up, resign the position and take your chances.

Mr. Fox wasn’t caught abusing his position. He didn’t gain from the action. He was trying to help a friend. He still took full responsibility for the action (I think it was considered forgery on an official document) and resigned.

In the end, his political career was slowed, but not damaged. He was again appointed to cabinet, and, I believe, maintained a good reputation. I tend not to vote Liberal, but consider him a worthy representative of his (riding’s) people.


We have lost this ethic. Our politicians make equally bad (if not worse) choices and do not take responsibility. They defend, deflect and in a term we used to use where I worked tap dance and cling to their position

Their leaders also defend, and tap-dance. No wonder we the voters/citizens have little respect for those who purport to represent us.

I respect Francis Fox. I am either losing or have completely lost respect for our “leaders” who tout one thing and blatantly do the opposite.


It is time for our parliamentarianss to return to the earlier more honourable ethic of conduct.


The Plaidneck

That Damn “I”

I just listened to a politician again say that is what “I” want for Canadians.

This was while speaking on behalf of our government.

People are diverse, government attempts to, hopefully through discussion and compromise/agreement, lead as a group, not via an individual.

The proper phrase would be what “we” want for Canadians. Maybe if our political leaders would use the “us” in their process and the rhetoric, we might not be (as it seems to be happening) devolve into leader lead cultism


Another part of this type of statement is the for “Canadians” bit – often prefaced by “all”.

I know that our government is for all and in order for a society to work properly, there must be a common law/rule before which we all are equal. I do; however, disagree with a politician intimating that her/his thoughts are mine. I’m enough of a contrarian to, at times, see things a bit differently. The politician may speak for us, he often doesn’t speak for me, there’s a difference.

My neighbours have a saying that is totally appropriate. “Vive la difference”

The Plaidneck

Maybe D.J.T is the right person after all

Who should lead a country?

Probably someone who is knowledgeably, curious, honest, wise and empathetic. Somehow, we don’t seem to get a chance to chose from those people. In most political parties, there have to be many who exhibit these demeanours.

I worked my entire professional career as staff reporting to and taking direction from a council of elected people. Very rarely did any of them not show at least strong evidence of at least three of these traits and leanings toward the other two. I find it difficult to believe that someone, who doesn’t learn, isn’t curious, doesn’t know how others feel or can’t keep stories straight gets selected by people like my bosses to lead a party of peers. Wisdom is a bit rarer, but hopefully there in some form or other.

Why is it that often the crud rather than the cream rises to the top?

I understand different philosophies lead to different choices. This is what we want, but considered differences. The back and forth of “I hear you” “I agree with this but not that” can lead to some very wise decisions.


However, in my view, the current “leader of the Free world” (being from a smaller but proud country, this seems a bit ostentatious) doesn’t exhibit a lot of knowledge, has a low level of curiosity, isn’t honest, lacks empathy and is nowhere near wise. If the result of their 2018 election and his reaction to current crises is any omen, he and his party could receive a major setback this fall.

Why is D.J.T the right person? If the major setback that is expected occurs and is continued “down ballot”, one of the country’s two parties will need a major reconsideration of their ethos. Hopefully the other party (not side as they’re supposed to be on the same side – their country’s) at least examines theirs as well to avoid a major setback when the expected backlash occurs.

All democracies should get back to government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not government of the financial elite by those purchased for the corporations. If a term of D.J.T. causes this reaction, he may have been the right person for country.


The Plaidneck

« Older posts

Copyright © 2021 Plaidneck

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑