Scott Tribe has an excellent theory: Jack is making a go of it with Harper over EI reforms only because he knows it will fail. That places Jack on top of the moral heap ('I tried making Parliament work...'), and also gives the Liberals justification to continue to seek an election, with the NDP supporting that vote.
I agree Scott may be right, and saw this possibility as well; however, I thought it more reasonable to take Jack at face value given the risks that come with making deals with someone like Harper, who is inherently unreliable and cunning.
As such, my plea of "Don't do it Jack" is reasonable. What if Jack is trying to do that, but then Harper gives him everything he asks for? Harper may do so just to put Jack on the spot. After all, the EI modifications being sought are only temporary, and cheap given how much red ink is flowing these days.
Temporarily improving EI is not enough reason to keep Harper afloat until next year, when he will push hard for his majority, citing economic victory with a likely false good-news budget in hand. I still maintain we should have taken him down last January after camping out on the Hill protesting Harper's pseudo-fascist closing of Parliament. So, don't do it, Jack!
But if Jack doesn't get what he wants, and also pleads that 'you can't work with these guys' well, I agree. All the better.
But, I suspect Harper understands this, and will work hard to go negative on him as well in the lead up to the vote. Let's hope Jack has a counter.
(I call every other leader by their last name, except Jack. Why? I have no idea.)
Showing posts with label EI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EI. Show all posts
Don't do it Jack!
Don't take the bribe!
Jack is making conciliatory noises towards Harper.
Harper averted a summer election by placating Ignatieff with a special EI committee. As we all know, Harper had the committee stonewalled, and then had his government produce partisan numbers to discredit the otherwise credible Liberal proposal.
Why, Jack, would you ever think that Harper wouldn't toy with you on this all the way to budget time, introduce a good news (read: filled with lies) budget and then call an election on his terms.
Is four years of a Conservative majority really worth it?
Think about it. You already know that you'll get more done with a Liberal minority. You should help pursue one.
Jack is making conciliatory noises towards Harper.
Harper averted a summer election by placating Ignatieff with a special EI committee. As we all know, Harper had the committee stonewalled, and then had his government produce partisan numbers to discredit the otherwise credible Liberal proposal.
Why, Jack, would you ever think that Harper wouldn't toy with you on this all the way to budget time, introduce a good news (read: filled with lies) budget and then call an election on his terms.
Is four years of a Conservative majority really worth it?
Think about it. You already know that you'll get more done with a Liberal minority. You should help pursue one.
Conservative EI shenanigans
The Conservatives are planning to dare the opposition parties to vote against an EI ways and means motion this coming Friday. It being a money bill, defeat means we'll have an election.
Well, provided Harper doesn't run tail-between-legs to the Governor General and try to close Parliament down again.
There's a two-prong attack here by Harper. First, he's daring the parties to vote against a proposal to help workers out, which the parties have been correctly fighting for for some time. Second, he's trying to appease the NDP, in the hope they will vote with him to sustain the government, increasing the noisy crosstalk between parties. If so, not much of a coalition there, Harper.
Curiously, he's relying at least in part on the opposition parties' goodwill to support needed changes he has dragged his feet on for some time. Harper doesn't act in the interests of Canada very often, but he relies on the opposition to do so. Ironic.
It seems to take brinkmanship to get this government to actually do anything.
In related news, I remind readers that the Parliamentary Budget Office released figures yestereday showing that the Conservative government completely misrepresented the cost of the Liberal EI proposal before the EI sham committee this past summer. Dianne Finlay was waving these false figures around just the other day, while also hinting that EI recipients are lazy. Sadly, these false figures came out of our government, which is not supposed to produce such partisan numbers. Harper never has appreciated our institutions.
In even more related news, the Conservatives are planning to break an election promise and increase EI rates for reasons none other than deficit reduction. This is something they used to go on about (quite correctly) under the Liberals, and had promised during the 2008 election to place the entire administration of the fund under arms-length management based on a zero surplus curve. Nada. Their grubby hands are all over the fund now, and they will be raising rates to fight their deficit, one mostly unrelated to the need for stimulus spending.
Stimulus spending Harper claimed we never needed, which is what brought about the formation of the Coalition last year and ultimately forced him to produce a proper budget. I wonder how many jobs the stimulus has saved?
Running counter to this, the Conservatives are increasing payroll taxes with the planned EI increases in order to make up for too deeply slashing the GST. Workers will be getting more expensive in Canada during an economic recovery.
Which doesn't sound very prudent.
Well, provided Harper doesn't run tail-between-legs to the Governor General and try to close Parliament down again.
There's a two-prong attack here by Harper. First, he's daring the parties to vote against a proposal to help workers out, which the parties have been correctly fighting for for some time. Second, he's trying to appease the NDP, in the hope they will vote with him to sustain the government, increasing the noisy crosstalk between parties. If so, not much of a coalition there, Harper.
Curiously, he's relying at least in part on the opposition parties' goodwill to support needed changes he has dragged his feet on for some time. Harper doesn't act in the interests of Canada very often, but he relies on the opposition to do so. Ironic.
It seems to take brinkmanship to get this government to actually do anything.
In related news, I remind readers that the Parliamentary Budget Office released figures yestereday showing that the Conservative government completely misrepresented the cost of the Liberal EI proposal before the EI sham committee this past summer. Dianne Finlay was waving these false figures around just the other day, while also hinting that EI recipients are lazy. Sadly, these false figures came out of our government, which is not supposed to produce such partisan numbers. Harper never has appreciated our institutions.
In even more related news, the Conservatives are planning to break an election promise and increase EI rates for reasons none other than deficit reduction. This is something they used to go on about (quite correctly) under the Liberals, and had promised during the 2008 election to place the entire administration of the fund under arms-length management based on a zero surplus curve. Nada. Their grubby hands are all over the fund now, and they will be raising rates to fight their deficit, one mostly unrelated to the need for stimulus spending.
Stimulus spending Harper claimed we never needed, which is what brought about the formation of the Coalition last year and ultimately forced him to produce a proper budget. I wonder how many jobs the stimulus has saved?
Running counter to this, the Conservatives are increasing payroll taxes with the planned EI increases in order to make up for too deeply slashing the GST. Workers will be getting more expensive in Canada during an economic recovery.
Which doesn't sound very prudent.
Conservatives claim EI makes people lazy?
Does Human Resources Minister Diane Finley think people on EI are lazy? Or that people needing retraining for losing their jobs actually have any EI left?
So, the Conservatives want to -- supposedly -- only help those with a very long work history in positions identified as being in decline who are recently out of work? Of course, Finley doesn't seem to realize that a lot of those people have been out of work now for some time, can't get a meaningful job and no longer have any EI. They will never qualify for whatever program Finley will propose.
Of course, retraining is what part of the EI fund is used for already. Every Federal government we've had recently has argued this as part of its rationalization for keeping a surplus in the EI fund.
Did you know -- true story -- that there's some neoclassical economists who actually believe that entire recessions are caused by workers deciding that they don't want to work quite so hard? I kid you not. This is stuff right out of the so-called Chicago School of economics.
Hey, aren't Harper and his gang adherents to that school?
Next up, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer (one of my favourite people) will be releasing stats tomorrow showing that the Conservatives have completely overestimated the costs of the Liberal's EI proposal. I believe he will argue it's $1.2 billion versus the Conservatives inflated $4 billion estimate. What is 'curious' about this is that the Conservatives claimed their estimate was unbiased and produced by civil servants. It now appears that the civil service may well be getting politicized.
It's a shame the Budget Officer is releasing the numbers on a Friday. New news released on Fridays almost always dies then and there as journalists rush home, and there's little continuity over the weekend.
The EI fight continues. I'd advise peopel to watch how this plays out in the next week or two. If the opposition parties can't get traction on this, it'll be an indication of how the election will go.
...Finley says it would be "irresponsible" to ease employment insurance rules to help tens of thousands of laid-off workers who cannot qualify for EI payments.
"It would be exceptionally expensive, and it would be irresponsible because we had – going into this recession, unlike previous recessions – a shortage of skills and labour. Our focus is on helping people get back to work," she said.
Liberal human resources critic Mike Savage (Dartmouth-Cole Harbour) says the underlying Conservative message is that the government believes more lenient EI eligibility would encourage Canadians to collect handouts rather than hunt for employment.
Asked about that, Finley said, easing EI qualifications "would not help people get back to work."
So, the Conservatives want to -- supposedly -- only help those with a very long work history in positions identified as being in decline who are recently out of work? Of course, Finley doesn't seem to realize that a lot of those people have been out of work now for some time, can't get a meaningful job and no longer have any EI. They will never qualify for whatever program Finley will propose.
Of course, retraining is what part of the EI fund is used for already. Every Federal government we've had recently has argued this as part of its rationalization for keeping a surplus in the EI fund.
Did you know -- true story -- that there's some neoclassical economists who actually believe that entire recessions are caused by workers deciding that they don't want to work quite so hard? I kid you not. This is stuff right out of the so-called Chicago School of economics.
Hey, aren't Harper and his gang adherents to that school?
Next up, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer (one of my favourite people) will be releasing stats tomorrow showing that the Conservatives have completely overestimated the costs of the Liberal's EI proposal. I believe he will argue it's $1.2 billion versus the Conservatives inflated $4 billion estimate. What is 'curious' about this is that the Conservatives claimed their estimate was unbiased and produced by civil servants. It now appears that the civil service may well be getting politicized.
It's a shame the Budget Officer is releasing the numbers on a Friday. New news released on Fridays almost always dies then and there as journalists rush home, and there's little continuity over the weekend.
The EI fight continues. I'd advise peopel to watch how this plays out in the next week or two. If the opposition parties can't get traction on this, it'll be an indication of how the election will go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Be Pleased at America's Greed
The Canadian Shield. Days! I have spent days wanting to write about Canada's attempts to negotiate a reduction in these coercive tariffs...
