Ignatieff calls for tax cuts, changes to EI

[jdobbin]

Shortly there after the first change to EI came, but clearly no one told Iggy. Nor would Iggy even know how EI works, as most MPs couldn't give a rats ass about it, it is just a political tool to say good positive things with no risk.

My understand of the speech in Halifax was that Ignatieff mentioned the coming changes to EI and said that there were still gaps to be filled during the economic crisis. You mentioned the money issue. He was mentioning training.

Edited January 9, 2009 by jdobbin

[madmax]

My understand of the speech in Halifax was that Ignatieff mentioned the coming changes to EI and said that there were still gaps to be filled during the economic crisis. You mentioned the money issue. He was mentioning training.

Training money will be coming from the Feds regardless of who is in power. That is a popular easy way out to duck the issue of a unemployment. Training is a good thing, and most Provinces have strong training programs and could use the extra cash.

Watch Harper go down the same path.

However, typical of Iggy he didn't mention expanding EI's catchment area. He never mentioned, how little people receive on EI compared to over a decade ago.

Nor are the LPC interested in tackling the fact that they made all the changes that have made EI a lucrative cash grab for the government.

[Yorkness]

Wasn't this elaborating?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/08/...ff-economy.html

No, it was not. The CBC story is almost an exact copy of the one from CTV. By elaboration I mean going into specifics. What constitutes a low and middle income Canadian? Will the deduction be a higher annual tax exemption? Or maybe a percentage cut? Or both? When will these changes be implemented? There are many questions unanswered for the lack of elaboration. I agree that it may not be politically viable to state such specifics with no clear election date set but that is why I choose to ignore news as this. It is simply too irrelevant for the times.

[Jean_Poutine]

This is not about reason or logic, it is about governing. It is about politics, which is to say that it is all about talking to the public in a manner that provides support for the positions you have undertaken. This is what it is all about, not the actual policies, but the way in which public perception is manipulated.

And saying that he'll vote against ANY budget just makes him look like an idiot.

[jdobbin]

Training money will be coming from the Feds regardless of who is in power. That is a popular easy way out to duck the issue of a unemployment. Training is a good thing, and most Provinces have strong training programs and could use the extra cash.

Training might be the one thing people need if some of these jobs don't come back as a result of technology changes or due to other changes.

Ignatieff mentioned that it was the speed of how EI's response that he kept hearing about in Halifax. It is something I have heard here in Winnipeg as well.

It takes forever to get things going. The government needs to speed up the process or the pain will be prolonged for many.

Watch Harper go down the same path.

He might very well.

However, typical of Iggy he didn't mention expanding EI's catchment area. He never mentioned, how little people receive on EI compared to over a decade ago.

I have no idea how much detail some of the meetings went into. Most of the discussions with local union leaders, business people, political leaders and NGOs was not reported.

Nor are the LPC interested in tackling the fact that they made all the changes that have made EI a lucrative cash grab for the government.

No doubt. I was never comfortable with the grab of EI cash while cutting benefits. The fact that they did it by order in council made it all the worse and the court found it illegal.

However, rag on Ignatieff all you like. The Liberals deserve the scrutiny. But let me ask you: where is Layton? The only thing I've heard recently is that he and his party are still upset about the tape recording.

[jdobbin]

No, it was not. The CBC story is almost an exact copy of the one from CTV. By elaboration I mean going into specifics.

Well, since the purpose of the meeting in Halifax was to hear what the local area's needs are, I doubt that you were going to see an entire policy platform outlined.

What constitutes a low and middle income Canadian? Will the deduction be a higher annual tax exemption? Or maybe a percentage cut? Or both? When will these changes be implemented? There are many questions unanswered for the lack of elaboration. I agree that it may not be politically viable to state such specifics with no clear election date set but that is why I choose to ignore news as this. It is simply too irrelevant for the times.

When Ignatieff gets to your local area, perhaps you can tell him what you think on those issues. Apparently that is what happened in Halifax when he met with local union, business, political and non-government leaders.

One of the things that Lester Pearson did when he became leader was to call for a policy overhaul. Through a combination of around the country meetings and a major policy convention open to all, the policies and future leaders of the party were found.

I think Ignatieff shouldn't repeat what Harper has done with a top down policy initiative but to hear from the ground up what is needed and wanted.

[Wilber]

It seems obvious to me that if you want to stimulate the economy with tax reductions that encouraging people to consume, the taxes that need to be reduced are consumption taxes. Any other tax decreases are social engineering and wealth redistribution, not a serious attempt at providing an economic stimulus. If that is what you want, fine but don't try to dress it up as something it is not.

Most Canadians with cards are paying up 19% and alot of us may not know there a 10% credit out there at your bank but the banks don't advertise that. Lets face it no matter what this government does, Canadians will feel the effect of it for a long time.

Anyone who carries over a credit card balance without it being an absolute last resort is an idiot. Short of loan sharks, just about any other form of credit is much cheaper.

[Jean_Poutine]

I don't believe that stance has changed.

Good. I look forward to seeing how he makes his case to the people in the next election.

The CPC have a minority government not much different then last term.

That's an interesting way of putting it. The Conservatives gained seats and the Liberals got their butts kicked. The string of minority governments is owed more to the fact that Quebec loves to send separatist politicians to Ottawa while sucking up tax dollars from Ontario and Alberta. Fortunately, more ridings are being added so that the Bloc will be less relevant.

The CPC unreasonable, they were reckless, let alone untrustworthy. Parliment hasn't changed how it functions, and the Prime Minister and his MPs are enjoying PAY without work.

I have no idea if Iggy will trust the tongue of Harper. The Prime Minister didn't bother to tell the public in his national address that he was going to ask the GG to give him and his pals an extended holiday in order to avoid work.

When the opposition is only interested in taking power that they couldn't earn in election, I'd say proroguing was probably for the best. Personally, I'd rather see another election.

Funny thing is that you won't see a single supporter of the coalition say they support another election because they know that there will likely be a price to pay in an election because of the coalition thing. We can argue about how Parliament functions, but if the majority of Canadians support a coalition, there's nothing to fear from another election, and if they don't, the coalition parties will suffer the consequences of their actions when there is another election. See, it's not just Harper that can't avoid the inevitable. Given that it's not a question of if but when there's another election, I say just bring it on now and confirm the will of the people.

However, I suspect that Iggy is smart enough to figure this out, and will try to work with the Conservatives for now. That would give the Liberals both time to raise money and to make a stronger case, but more importantly, it's in the interest of the country that they try to get something done, and I'm sure people will remember those that didn't make the effort, which is why I think Layton is making an ass out of himself.

The Conservatives said that they'll fight the coalition with all legal means available, and proroguing is one of them.

[Jean_Poutine]

Jack Layton is Jack Layton, and his anger over the Conservative's personal attacks to stay in power, was not unfounded. They used his father.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2008...04/7634731.html

They taped his phone conversations.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Fron...2/11/02900.html

They lied, and lied and lied some more. And when on a roll they lied again.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/...-broadbent.html

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...dian-flags.aspx

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...me=&no_ads=

http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2008/11/h...t-hypcrite.html

How could Mr. Layton possibly trust him? Mr. Harper has told so many lies that clearly he's losing track of them.

And again a reminder that in Canada we don't elect Prime Ministers and he only has the backing of a minority of Canadians. 62% DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM and only vote-splitting gave him more seats. Not a stronger mandate since he garnered amost 170,000 fewer votes in 2008 than 2006. He's slipping.

You are one confused Tory.

[madmax]

It seems obvious to me that if you want to stimulate the economy with tax reductions that encouraging people to consume, the taxes that need to be reduced are consumption taxes. Any other tax decreases are social engineering and wealth redistribution, not a serious attempt at providing an economic stimulus. If that is what you want, fine but don't try to dress it up as something it is not.

Wilber for MP.

[jdobbin]

However, I suspect that Iggy is smart enough to figure this out, and will try to work with the Conservatives for now. That would give the Liberals both time to raise money and to make a stronger case, but more importantly, it's in the interest of the country that they try to get something done, and I'm sure people will remember those that didn't make the effort, which is why I think Layton is making an ass out of himself.

If Harper acts like a horse's ass when the budget comes down, I expect the budget will be voted down. Are you suggesting he should act like an ass just to make it happen? He might just get his election then and maybe he would be the one paying the price.

[jdobbin]

It seems obvious to me that if you want to stimulate the economy with tax reductions that encouraging people to consume, the taxes that need to be reduced are consumption taxes. Any other tax decreases are social engineering and wealth redistribution, not a serious attempt at providing an economic stimulus. If that is what you want, fine but don't try to dress it up as something it is not.

There is no doubt that eliminating the GST might loosen wallets in the short term. The majority of economists said that the longer term solution for stimulus are lower income taxes.

The government will have to decide if they need a short term stimulus or a long term one as well as. Then they need to figure the consequences of a deficit. If there is no plan to either reduce spending or set the tax back when things start improving, we might be looking ar a structural deficit with no end on sight.

Edited January 9, 2009 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

Wilber for MP.

Thanks for the compliment but no thanks, I'm no good at that politicking stuff (don't have the patience for it) and would probably end up offending more people than I would convince.

[blueblood]

If Harper acts like a horse's ass when the budget comes down, I expect the budget will be voted down. Are you suggesting he should act like an ass just to make it happen? He might just get his election then and maybe he would be the one paying the price.

Harper will pay a price after the next election. If he loses/gets another minority, he'll be done immediately after. If he gets a majority, he'll be done halfway to late in his tenure.

If Harper doesn't act like a horse's ass, he allows Ignatieff to build credibility and establish his base.

[jdobbin]

Harper will pay a price after the next election. If he loses/gets another minority, he'll be done immediately after. If he gets a majority, he'll be done halfway to late in his tenure.

At this point even reducing the political subsidy might not draw an election. Ignatieff has added one of the big moneymakers into the party, a person who knows something about pulling in money from small donors.

The problem is that if Harper does something big enough to draw an election, it may unpopular with more than just the Opposition. In other words, Harper would have engineered his defeat in a general election.

If Harper doesn't act like a horse's ass, he allows Ignatieff to build credibility and establish his base.

It's too late. That already seems to be happening.

[blueblood]

At this point even reducing the political subsidy might not draw an election. Ignatieff has added one of the big moneymakers into the party, a person who knows something about pulling in money from small donors.

The problem is that if Harper does something big enough to draw an election, it may unpopular with more than just the Opposition. In other words, Harper would have engineered his defeat in a general election.

It's too late. That already seems to be happening.

In that case the political subsidy reduction would be good for the Liberals as in the fact the BQ would be toast financially. The Liberals would probably pick up seats in Quebec. I think the political subsidy reduction might actually be good for federalism.

And this is why Harper wanted an early election. I think Harper prorogued parliament to save his own bacon. Tory Brass, I think wouldn't have cared one whit about the coalition thing, party leaders are a dime a dozen. Harper should have asked for an election right there.

[jdobbin]

In that case the political subsidy reduction would be good for the Liberals as in the fact the BQ would be toast financially. The Liberals would probably pick up seats in Quebec. I think the political subsidy reduction might actually be good for federalism.

It might not be so good for the Tories. Even if an election did not result from putting this measure back in, it could create even more bad blood in Quebec. The Tories have a lot of damage control there or...perhaps they are writing off the province. Don't know if that is such a great idea. Once you write off 75 seats, you start off at a disadvantage in terms of getting a majority.

And this is why Harper wanted an early election. I think Harper prorogued parliament to save his own bacon. Tory Brass, I think wouldn't have cared one whit about the coalition thing, party leaders are a dime a dozen. Harper should have asked for an election right there.

He prorogued because it was unlikely to get an election. His time as PM would have been over.

[blueblood]

It might not be so good for the Tories. Even if an election did not result from putting this measure back in, it could create even more bad blood in Quebec. The Tories have a lot of damage control there or...perhaps they are writing off the province. Don't know if that is such a great idea. Once you write off 75 seats, you start off at a disadvantage in terms of getting a majority.

He prorogued because it was unlikely to get an election. His time as PM would have been over.

I think there are some seats in Quebec that will vote tory no matter what just like some seats in Manitoba. Harper will have a hard time getting above 10 seats there however. Fiscal Conservatism in Quebec is a hard sell, no matter which party is doing it.

I thought he prorogued in order to buy time to spring another plank to fight a campaign on. However the Liberals as it looks threw a wrench into that scheme by punting Dion, installing Ignatieff, and wasting no time on getting down to business. Harper's best chance now is if the economy recovers quickly and he can rebalance the books, or try to go to an early election and try and put the best spin possible.

[jdobbin]

I think there are some seats in Quebec that will vote tory no matter what just like some seats in Manitoba. Harper will have a hard time getting above 10 seats there however. Fiscal Conservatism in Quebec is a hard sell, no matter which party is doing it.

Given that until recently there was no seats in Quebec for the Tories, I don't know how you can be so sure. There seems to be a collapse of Tory support in Quebec based on Harper's anti-coalition stance that attacked the voting choice of many Quebecers.

I thought he prorogued in order to buy time to spring another plank to fight a campaign on. However the Liberals as it looks threw a wrench into that scheme by punting Dion, installing Ignatieff, and wasting no time on getting down to business. Harper's best chance now is if the economy recovers quickly and he can rebalance the books, or try to go to an early election and try and put the best spin possible.

That spin would have to be something big because I think the backlash against brinkmanship will be a strong one.

The fact that Harper is trying to sound less combative is probably because the numbers don't look good for re-election.

[blueblood]

Given that until recently there was no seats in Quebec for the Tories, I don't know how you can be so sure. There seems to be a collapse of Tory support in Quebec based on Harper's anti-coalition stance that attacked the voting choice of many Quebecers.

That spin would have to be something big because I think the backlash against brinkmanship will be a strong one.

The fact that Harper is trying to sound less combative is probably because the numbers don't look good for re-election.

His core region of Quebec is rural and wealthy - typical tory voters.

I didn't say the spin would be small...

I think the less combative approach is to try and goad the voters into looking like Harper is playing nice and when he springs his trap, Ignatieff will look bad. However, the fact that no ads were released about the coalition doesn't bode well for the tories. I think Harper has changed tactics and is going to try to be the hero that saved the economy, which IMO is incredibly risky because when the Libs raise enough money, the gloves come off. For his sake Harper better hope this mess clears quickly and the Libs play nice. After the budget, I think the Libs are in the driver's seat.

[jdobbin]

His core region of Quebec is rural and wealthy - typical tory voters.

Who have not voted Tory very much in recent years and are pretty peeved at Harper's attacks in the last weeks.

I didn't say the spin would be small...

I'm sure it would be a whopper.

I think the less combative approach is to try and goad the voters into looking like Harper is playing nice and when he springs his trap, Ignatieff will look bad. However, the fact that no ads were released about the coalition doesn't bode well for the tories. I think Harper has changed tactics and is going to try to be the hero that saved the economy, which IMO is incredibly risky because when the Libs raise enough money, the gloves come off. For his sake Harper better hope this mess clears quickly and the Libs play nice. After the budget, I think the Libs are in the driver's seat.

I can't think of anything in the budget that Harper would be willing to look that bad on.

The Liberals could probably survive the subsidy change so all it would do for the Tories is to show how they lied after the economic statement about withdrawing it.

[Jean_Poutine]

If Harper acts like a horse's ass when the budget comes down, I expect the budget will be voted down. Are you suggesting he should act like an ass just to make it happen? He might just get his election then and maybe he would be the one paying the price.

Perhaps you're referring to cutting subsidies to political parties in the economic statement? That'd deal a blow to the Bloc and how is that a bad thing? Why should Canadian tax dollars go to a separatist party? As for the Liberals and NDP, why can't their supporters put their money where their mouths are? Obama didn't depend on subsidies to get elected. If the Liberals truly have so much support, they should have no problem raising money.

Having things in the budget that you do not agree with does not equate to acting like a horses ass. It's about representing the interests of other people -- not just you.

As I've said in another post, it isn't just a minority government when it's convenient for you. Given the oppositions ability to vote down the budget, they must also wear the $40 billion deficit -- should it pass. You can't have it both ways.

[jdobbin]

Perhaps you're referring to cutting subsidies to political parties in the economic statement? That'd deal a blow to the Bloc and how is that a bad thing? Why should Canadian tax dollars go to a separatist party? As for the Liberals and NDP, why can't their supporters put their money where their mouths are? Obama didn't depend on subsidies to get elected. If the Liberals truly have so much support, they should have no problem raising money.

At this point, I think the Liberals will have a much easier time raising money.

Nevertheless, Harper said the proposition is off the table and if he brings it back, it makes him look like as ass.

Having things in the budget that you do not agree with does not equate to acting like a horses ass. It's about representing the interests of other people -- not just you.

It is about Harper playing the brinkmanship game again and yes, that makes him look like as ass.

As I've said in another post, it isn't just a minority government when it's convenient for you. Given the oppositions ability to vote down the budget, they must also wear the $40 billion deficit -- should it pass. You can't have it both ways.

No doubt. However, the Liberals will bring down the government if it appears Harper's management of the economy is not helping. Unless Harper plans on asking Ignatieff to join his government, management rests with him. And that is what he will be judged on.

Edited January 10, 2009 by jdobbin

[bluegreen]

At this point, I think the Liberals will have a much easier time raising money.

Nevertheless, Harper said the proposition is off the table and if he brings it back, it makes him look like as ass.

It is about Harper playing the brinkmanship game again and yes, that makes him look like as ass.

No doubt. However, the Liberals will bring down the government if it appears Harper's management of the economy is not helping. Unless Harper plans on asking Ignatieff to join his government, management rests with him. And that is what he will be judged on.

On raising money: When the Liberals finally get past their reluctance to devlove organizing to the provincial oganizations, and centralize the fundraising function, the money will flow like a Niagara. That's an obvious lesson that every Party should have learned from the Conservatives.

For the rest, I think we may be witnessing the emergence of another Liberal Macchiavelli comparable to Chretien. (That's a complement) Consider "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition"

Ignatieff has positioned himself masterfully. A coalition just isn't wise for the Liberals, but it's a totally credible threat. He can sorrowfully take the big chair if needs be. In the meantime, he has acquired a veto over the governments legislative agenda. There will be a federal election when it suits Ignatieff. Harper will be the author of all that's bad, and Ignatieff will take the credit for everything good in the interim. It's game over folks. The wars over, except for the actual shooting bits.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I believe that you have hit the nail on the head.