Moonbox Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) His conditions for allowing parliament to proceed: 1. Give more details of EI reform proposals 2. Give more details of stimulus spending 3. Give more details of how to balance the budget in the future 4. Give more details of how to fix the isotope shortage After all media speculation, nothing's changed. I think he's being smart in that the recession still has a lot of legs and it's probably better to wait than to force another election so soon, but it would have been interesting to see the Liberals call Layton's bluff and pound him at the polls. Edited June 15, 2009 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
jdobbin Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) After all media speculation, nothing's changed. I think he's being smart in that the recession still has a lot of legs and it's probably better to wait than to force another election so soon, but it would have been interesting to see the Liberals call Layton's bluff and pound him at the polls. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories call the election themselves this week and blame uncertainty as the reason. Edited June 15, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
Moonbox Posted June 15, 2009 Author Report Posted June 15, 2009 I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories call the election themselves this week and blame uncertainty as the reason. Haha. Wouldn't that be funny? Or not....but it would destroy the little credibility Harper has left. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
ToadBrother Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories call the election themselves this week and blame uncertainty as the reason. I doubt it. I can't see the Tory caucus letting Harper force an election. Besides, the EI issue is a dangerous one for the Tories. They'll buckle, I think. Quote
the janitor Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 Harper should resign. He'll never win a majority and he can make more money in private industry. Not that I like the Liberals any better, and the NDP are a complete waste of votes. Quote
Moonbox Posted June 15, 2009 Author Report Posted June 15, 2009 I hope they don't and doubt it but I wouldn't be really surprised if they did. EI reforms -- sure. EI reforms as proposed by Ignatieff -- PLEASE no. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Topaz Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 Harper and Findley has said they will NOT change the 360 hours and if they really mean ,then we are going to have a July election, if Iggy stands by his word. If people get a job and then they are layoff or the company closes what are they to do for money? My area has a 10% unemployment, larger than the national and there are no jobs. Iggy did the right thing, put back in Harper court and let him decide if there going to me an election. Quote
Moonbox Posted June 15, 2009 Author Report Posted June 15, 2009 Harper and Findley has said they will NOT change the 360 hours and if they really mean ,then we are going to have a July election, if Iggy stands by his word. If people get a job and then they are layoff or the company closes what are they to do for money? My area has a 10% unemployment, larger than the national and there are no jobs. Iggy did the right thing, put back in Harper court and let him decide if there going to me an election. EI can be changed to help people who are in and out of work temporarily, but changing the minimum to 360 hours is not a good way to do it. It's too arbitrary and it will be too easy to abuse. EI already gets abused significantly as is. Harper will not go with the 360 hour minimum as proposed by Ignatieff, and I doubt Ignatieff would call an election over it either, because it would be an easy issue for Harper to attack him on. There will likely be a compromise on the issue. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
ToadBrother Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 EI can be changed to help people who are in and out of work temporarily, but changing the minimum to 360 hours is not a good way to do it. It's too arbitrary and it will be too easy to abuse. EI already gets abused significantly as is. Harper will not go with the 360 hour minimum as proposed by Ignatieff, and I doubt Ignatieff would call an election over it either, because it would be an easy issue for Harper to attack him on. There will likely be a compromise on the issue. There's going to have to be something, because folks in some part of the country are getting pretty restive. Quote
Moonbox Posted June 15, 2009 Author Report Posted June 15, 2009 There's going to have to be something, because folks in some part of the country are getting pretty restive. Hey no argument there. There are just better ways to do it than just a blanket reduction in required working hours. There are people who deserve it, and there are ways of giving it to them, without making it easy for people who don't deserve it to get it. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
capricorn Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 I can't see the Tory caucus letting Harper force an election. Besides, the EI issue is a dangerous one for the Tories. They'll buckle, I think. EI is also a perilous issue for the Liberals because Canadians are so against an election about EI. That signals that Canadians don't see anything of importance wrong with the present system as amended by the Conservatives. Ignatieff is covering his bases by including EI with stimulus spending and isotopes as issues of contention. This way, whenever Ignatieff decides to pull the plug, he can tweak his election campaign to push EI to the back burner if need be. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
fellowtraveller Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 Harper also has the option of telling Ignatieff to go pound sand up his you-know-what, and let the chips fall where they may. Igantieff is totally bluffing, and not very well either.. Quote The government should do something.
ToadBrother Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 Hey no argument there. There are just better ways to do it than just a blanket reduction in required working hours. There are people who deserve it, and there are ways of giving it to them, without making it easy for people who don't deserve it to get it. Okay, what's your way of getting rid of the regional disparity? The economy here in BC is tanking, and yet we're not seeing EI changes to make up for that. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 Harper also has the option of telling Ignatieff to go pound sand up his you-know-what, and let the chips fall where they may. Igantieff is totally bluffing, and not very well either.. Harper could do that, but his own caucus would likely drag him through the streets if he was the one that forced an election. I realize it's tough for some of the Harper cheerleaders here to understand, but it wasn't just the Opposition that Harper pissed off last December, it was his own party, and he has almost as little maneuvering room with them as he does with the rest of Parliament. Quote
Moonbox Posted June 15, 2009 Author Report Posted June 15, 2009 Okay, what's your way of getting rid of the regional disparity? The economy here in BC is tanking, and yet we're not seeing EI changes to make up for that. Regional disparity is a problem but it's not one of Harper's creation. It's a travesty that you can get EI after working only 360 hours a year ANYWHERE in this country. That should NEVER have become permanent policy and it's disgusting that it is. The solution is NOT to allow it everywhere but rather entirely rewrite the qualification system. If, for example, you're hit with a recession that temporarily lowers employment numbers in general, the system can be amended to extend benefits for part of the duration and make allowances for workers who get hired and laid off in succession, providing that they had strong employment history prior. Someone who worked for years and years at GM, for example, is likely going to have trouble finding work right now and will likely need help retraining and finding new permanent work. I see no problem making amendments for THAT sort of person. For those who have little to no extended employment history, however, including the many that work for the summer and then get laid off and work under the table in the winter (ie my brother in law), their EI benefits should be taken away and they can find out what it means to actually work a whole year. They should have a proven history of working the vast majority of the year and if they don't then they can suck their own asses. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Oleg Bach Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 I've been a bad influence on you guys "suck their own asses" - never saw such talk till I arrived...I feel so f**king guilty - see the way I put the polite little suggestive stars - to replace the U and the K - in fucking... Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 Regional disparity is a problem but it's not one of Harper's creation. It's a travesty that you can get EI after working only 360 hours a year ANYWHERE in this country. That should NEVER have become permanent policy and it's disgusting that it is. The solution is NOT to allow it everywhere but rather entirely rewrite the qualification system.If, for example, you're hit with a recession that temporarily lowers employment numbers in general, the system can be amended to extend benefits for part of the duration and make allowances for workers who get hired and laid off in succession, providing that they had strong employment history prior. Someone who worked for years and years at GM, for example, is likely going to have trouble finding work right now and will likely need help retraining and finding new permanent work. I see no problem making amendments for THAT sort of person. For those who have little to no extended employment history, however, including the many that work for the summer and then get laid off and work under the table in the winter (ie my brother in law), their EI benefits should be taken away and they can find out what it means to actually work a whole year. They should have a proven history of working the vast majority of the year and if they don't then they can suck their own asses. So, in many less words, you would in fact toss even more people off of EI right now. Quote
normanchateau Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 Harper should resign. He'll never win a majority and he can make more money in private industry. Never in his life has Harper made more money than he has earned as a politician. The only job he ever held before entering politics was as a mailroom clerk in the Edmonton office of Imperial Oil. Leaving politics would mean unemployment for Harper. He won't resign. Quote
benny Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) His conditions for allowing parliament to proceed:1. Give more details of EI reform proposals 2. Give more details of stimulus spending 3. Give more details of how to balance the budget in the future 4. Give more details of how to fix the isotope shortage After all media speculation, nothing's changed. I think he's being smart in that the recession still has a lot of legs and it's probably better to wait than to force another election so soon, but it would have been interesting to see the Liberals call Layton's bluff and pound him at the polls. Ignatieff is so ready for election that he had to invoke an imaginary Canadian public today to refrain himself. Edited June 15, 2009 by benny Quote
normanchateau Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 Harper also has the option of telling Ignatieff to go pound sand up his you-know-what, and let the chips fall where they may. Take that option Mr. Harper! Quote
benny Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 The Harper government cannot continue repeating arrogantly and ad nauseam to Liberals: "thanks for your support!". Quote
Smallc Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 It's a travesty that you can get EI after working only 360 hours a year ANYWHERE in this country. Well, lucky for you, you can't. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 I will suggest that Iggy is more than just ready for the next election he is already setting the table. It will be Harpers fault if the government fails to satisfy a majority of members in the House of Commons come the next opposition day. That is Friday folks, the next opportunity for a non-confidence motion. We will see where the chips fall, but for now the ball is in the PM's court. He can either do what a majority of members want or he can call an election. He has a third option, and that is to thumb his nose at a majority of MP's and lose a confidence motion. That would display a lack of leadership skills, and I think that is what he will do. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 I will suggest that Iggy is more than just ready for the next election he is already setting the table. It will be Harpers fault if the government fails to satisfy a majority of members in the House of Commons come the next opposition day. That is Friday folks, the next opportunity for a non-confidence motion. We will see where the chips fall, but for now the ball is in the PM's court. He can either do what a majority of members want or he can call an election. He has a third option, and that is to thumb his nose at a majority of MP's and lose a confidence motion. That would display a lack of leadership skills, and I think that is what he will do. Harper's already starting to make "be friends" noises, so I expect that there will be give on some issues by Friday. I do agree with Harper that any kind of major reforms to EI are going to take more than a few days, but he's signaled that he's ready to talk. What it does show is just how much power Iggy now wields in Parliament. Quote
jdobbin Posted June 15, 2009 Report Posted June 15, 2009 Harper also has the option of telling Ignatieff to go pound sand up his you-know-what, and let the chips fall where they may. Igantieff is totally bluffing, and not very well either.. Guess we find out If Harper does that. Harper himself might call th election. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.