What direction the Conservatives Should Take

[Smallc]

Name one industry in which people can work 3 months a year and draw EI for 9 months.

[The_Squid]

Name one industry in which people can work 3 months a year and draw EI for 9 months.

The fishing industry.

http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/ei/fishing/index.page

[G Huxley]

Name one industry in which people can work 3 months a year and draw EI for 9 months.

Municipal Auditor of B.C.

"Ruta had delivered just one audit since 2013 after promising 18 in her first year. The office has an annual budget of $2.6 million."

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/fired-b-c-municipal-auditor-may-not-get-severance-will-seek-judicial-review-1.1801450

[The_Squid]

Municipal Auditor of B.C.

"Ruta had delivered just one audit since 2013 after promising 18 in her first year. The office has an annual budget of $2.6 million."

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/fired-b-c-municipal-auditor-may-not-get-severance-will-seek-judicial-review-1.1801450

What does that have to do with EI or the question smallc asked?

[G Huxley]

It was a joke.

[Smallc]

The fishing industry.

http://www.esdc.gc.ca/en/ei/fishing/index.page

Three months for a year?

[Argus]

Three months for a year?

Actually 14 weeks. But that's based on a 35 hr work week. Obviously if you worked more than 35 hrs per week you would need fewer weeks of earnings.

As previously mentioned, your eligibility for fishing benefits also depends on your activities during your labour force attachment period. During this 52-week period, which precedes the start date of your qualifying period, you need to have earned $3,000 or more as a self-employed fisher, or you need to have had 14 weeks or 490 hours or more of labour force attachment related to fishing.

...

The benefit period for a summer claim can start as early as the week of October 1 and must end no later than the week of June 15.

The benefit period can be extended to a maximum of 52 weeks if you are claiming EI special benefits such as sickness benefits. The benefit period is extended by one week for each week of special benefits claimed.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

That's crazy. The winter fisherman here don't get near that, and I consider their benefits to be too much.

[Icebound]

While it is true that technology has changed society in many ways I believe your claim that society is more complex than it was in the past to be false. The only thing that has changed is many more people have access to much more information than they ever did and this creates the illusion of complexity but at their core the problems society faces are the same as they always have been.

The problems are NOTHING like they have "always been".

We are trying to drive a 2017 high-speed crowded highway with an 1980 Fort Pinto instead of a 2017 Buick Regal, .

We argue: "no need" to add back-up cameras, blind-spot sensors, lane-departure warnings. progressive cruise control, emergency braking, or side curtain air-bags.

Its all too expensive.

It is not an "illusion" that we now live in higher population density than we ever were before, resulting in everything from stalled transportation systems to overcrowded slums.

.

Is is not an "illusion", that we are much more susceptible to fraud... internet theft.... financial manipulation ,... counterfeit goods and food, ... counterfeit and unneeded services.

It is not an "illusion" that there are excess pharmaceuticals in our drinking water, extra CO2 in our air, and funny foreign fish in our lakes.

It is not an "illusion" that the wealth which IS being created, is being held in increasingly fewer hands, while the remaining population's buying power is dropping.

Back when...

Most of my food was local, because transportation was not so sophisticated. I knew my grocer, and I probably knew the farmer he got his meat from. I didn't need a food inspector, because if my grocer felt it was good enough to sell, then that was good enough for me.

I knew my banker; if I had a problem with my bank account, I could discuss it with him face to face, and most likely resolve it in ten minutes. If a cheque came in that looked suspicious, he would phone me and confirm..

Investments were simple, shares and bonds and real estate.

Work was simpler. I worked for a corporation for so many hours a week for such pay, and at the end of 35 years, I got a pension.

Education was simpler. The secondary or post-secondary schooling that I got, stood me in good stead for the rest of my career with a little bit of updating. There was no risk that in 10 or 15 years, my skill-set would be so out of date that I would be let go. In 10 or 15 years, I was the one with the "seniority" and was the MOST skilled, not the least.

Or I ran a small business until I retired, and then my son took it over, and HE was my pension.

Home life was simpler.

My heating, cooling, energy, and communications needs were met by local tradespeople who I knew and dealt with all the time. They did not sell my contract to some new corporate entity every time I turn around like happens now.

The only possible thing that is the same was the permanent fear. Communism was going to take over the world, the Russians were going to Nuke us, the Americans were going to assimilate us, the immigrants were going to overrun us.

On that one point, your are right: nothing has changed.

...

No... You will have a hard time convince people that "the problems society faces are the same as they always have been".

.

[TimG]

It is not an "illusion" that we now live in higher population density than we ever were before, resulting in everything from stalled transportation systems to overcrowded slums.

Fewer people are living in poverty than ever. The "poor" in most countries today have access to products and services that the extremely rich could not dream of 100 years ago.

Is is not an "illusion", that we are much more susceptible to fraud... internet theft.... financial manipulation ,... counterfeit goods and food, ... counterfeit and unneeded services.

Fraud has always existed. So have counterfeiters. The tools have only changed but so have the tools that can be used to protect against it.

It is not an "illusion" that there are excess pharmaceuticals in our drinking water, extra CO2 in our air, and funny foreign fish in our lakes.

And 100 years ago our cities were filled with horse excrement and other filth. People died young from bacterial infections that are easy to treat today. The environment we live in has never been cleaner or safer.

It is not an "illusion" that the wealth which IS being created, is being held in increasingly fewer hands, while the remaining population's buying power is dropping.

Global society is more egalitarian that it ever has been. In the past all of the wealth was hoarded by feudal lords which left the serfs with nothing.

My heating, cooling, energy, and communications needs were met by local tradespeople who I knew and dealt with all the time. They did not sell my contract to some new corporate entity every time I turn around like happens now.

Yet those corporate entities provide much greater services at a fraction of the cost.

Your nostalgia for the 'good old days' can't stand up to concrete facts.

[SpankyMcFarland]

The direction should be a little sunnier. Attending the Press Gallery dinner on a regular basis might be a good start. Rona Ambrose did well there the other night:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/parliamentary-press-gallery-dinner-2016-1.3617005

By contrast, Michelle Rempel made a fool of herself by getting so angry with John McCallum's harmless joke about his own appearance:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-mccallum-rempel-joke-1.3620841

[Icebound]

Your nostalgia for the 'good old days' can't stand up to concrete facts.

I have NO nostalgia for good old days. I was merely pointing out that today's problems are more complex as a rebuttal to your original thesis that they are not.

I said nothing about poverty. High living density increases the complexity of housing, neighbour interaction, turf wars, sewage disposal, transportation and a host of other things.

Fraud. Those tools for combating fraud can't be working very well. The BBB thinks over a billion was lost in scams in Canada, and that's not counting how much the banks lose., Nobody used to be able to steal a HOUSE. Fraudsters couldn't mass market their scams as easily so your chance of being hit was a lot less.

The environment may be cleaner and safer than 100 years ago, but it took a lot of effort and regulation to get it there. It would not have happened but for regulation.... and it has to keep up with our new pollutants, such as plastic pellets, pharmaceuticals, oilsand tailing leaching into groundwater, etc...

Corporate entities and service "at a fraction of the cost"... my phone bill has not gone down. I am paying mandatory rental on a modem which has been paid 10 times over for my internet. My internet address can change at a moments notice if my provider decides to sell out to somebody else. I have a cell phone which won't work in certain areas of the country because MY provider does not have a presence there. Even if service WERE "better", you cannot say that life is "less complex".

Edited June 8, 2016 by Icebound

[Newfoundlander]

By contrast, Michelle Rempel made a fool of herself by getting so angry with John McCallum's harmless joke about his own appearance:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-mccallum-rempel-joke-1.3620841

Maybe if had he also taken her question seriously after his joke she wouldn't have gotten upset. She asked an important question and he made a joke without answering, he's also been quite rude to her questions in the past. What would you expect her to just laugh and move onto another topic?

[Icebound]

Very little of the federal government's budget goes for any of those things. Most of it goes for allowance money, for paying people to not work. It goes for pogey so people can work three months a year, for pensions, including to those who don't need it and didn't contribute to it, for natives to sit around in the boonies and get drunk, and is passed on to the provinces for welfare. Most of the government is about taking money away from those who earned it and giving it to people who didn't.

Well, if there was a job for every Canadian who needed one....

And IF the fruits of that labour was shared sufficiently with the worker so it would sustain him over periods of unemployment and/or sickness and/or old age.....

.... then things might be different and we wouldn't need pogey.

But "industry's" priority has been profits and cost-cutting, REDUCING the labour force, Industry has done IT'S hare of "not contributing", by cleaning up as little of their waste as possible leaving it for somebody else... relocating jobs (and taxes) offshore .... even hiding and evading

As for the native issue.... you can argue that they "contributed" quite a bit.... like most of the land that they used to have free access to. In any case, the chickens are coming home to roost after years of mismanagement through neglect and prejudice. And THAT fun is just beginning.

By the way.... you may want to rethink your "sit around and get drunk" stereotype. It may be true that.... as a percentage of population ... the number of people who drink HEAVILY is higher among First-nations than the rest of us ... but also FEWER DRINK AT ALL, compared to the rest of us. Substance abuse among first nations is a problem, no question.... so are gangs in Toronto, child porn on the internet, and teenage suicide in Woodstock. People are trying to work on them all....

If we stereotype too much, people will start thinking that all Conservatives are drunks and crack-heads because of one former Premier and one former Mayor.

...

[Argus]

Well, if there was a job for every Canadian who needed one....

Well, if every Canadian finished school and worked hard...

Unfortunately, lots of Canadians don't bother, and lots of Canadians are lazy and stupid and have a lousy work ethic, and easily give up when no one offers them a high paying job right out of the box, and want daddy to look after them and give them an allowance so they can relax and play video games and go to concerts and hang around with their friends.

And IF the fruits of that labour was shared sufficiently with the worker so it would sustain him over periods of unemployment and/or sickness and/or old age.....

.... then things might be different and we wouldn't need pogey.

When you have a skill set which is in-demand you get a decent payout. When you don't, you don't. What's fairer than that?

If a job doesn't pay you enough to make ends meet then find another. Don't stay at it year after year claiming pogey for much of the year and expecting me to pay you to sit around on your ass.

[Argus]

The problems are NOTHING like they have "always been".

Gee, let's see. The problem used to be that you needed to earn enough to feed, house and clothe your family. Because if you didn't, no one else was going to. There was no pogey and very little in the way of welfare or public health insurance.

Now we have a robust social safety net which keeps anyone from starving or freezing to death without shelter, and provides all sorts of free medical services. Seems to me today's problems, then, are much less stressful and dangerous than they used to be.

It is not an "illusion" that the wealth which IS being created, is being held in increasingly fewer hands,

Not actually true in Canada, and hasn't been for ten years. Income inequality has been narrowing, not widening, thanks to the Conservatives.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Maybe if had he also taken her question seriously after his joke she wouldn't have gotten upset. She asked an important question and he made a joke without answering, he's also been quite rude to her questions in the past. What would you expect her to just laugh and move onto another topic?

Yes, I would actually. If you listen to his additional reply to her question you'll see he clearly distinguished between his responses to her question and to her remark about photo-ops. Smirky Rempel started the smart-alecky stuff there as she often does. On Power and Politics, we have had to endure ten years of snide remarks from Rempelsmirksin. One of her fave starters is 'I'm curious' when she is not curious at all but is preparing to be sarcastic. A little more of the self-effacing humour of Mr. McCallum would do her image no harm at all. She's much cockier than Ambrose, Raitt or Leitch.

Edited June 8, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[overthere]

That's crazy. The winter fisherman here don't get near that, and I consider their benefits to be too much.

Maybe if your fisherman got organized and delivered every Commons seat in the region to The Natural Governing Party they'd have some leverage for a better deal. Like the Maritimes.

Canada is a country that now features several regions in bitter fights with each other to get their own tax money back from the federal government to pay for programs and services that are provincial responsibilities. Crazy but true. And if you toe the line, you'll get a little more pogey. Get used to it, it is the harsh reality. It is 2016!

[Smallc]

Maybe if your fisherman got organized and delivered every Commons seat in the region to The Natural Governing Party they'd have some leverage for a better deal. Like the Maritimes.

I'm sure they vote Liberal. The Dauphin-SwanRiver-Neepawa seat is solidly in the Conservative back bench.

[Big Guy]

Canadians vote in those people who promise to do what the majority of Canadians want.

"What direction the Conservatives Should Take?" How about figuring out what the majority of Canadians want and change their platform to satisfy those wants? Then the majority will vote for Conservatives and they will again be in power.

Seems simple enough to me.

[overthere]

Canadians vote in those people who promise to do what the majority of Canadians want.

"What direction the Conservatives Should Take?" How about figuring out what the majority of Canadians want and change their platform to satisfy those wants? Then the majority will vote for Conservatives and they will again be in power.

Seems simple enough to me.

That is ridiculous.

Elect the Party that promises the most, because Canadians want lots of things? Oh wait, that is what just happened.

I want a government that has a plan to ensure that a) our country is safe and secure maintains a reasonable social contract and environment that serves us all equitably, fairly and sustainably c) has the plan to create enough wealth in an economy that can support both a and b in the long term.

I am not stupid enough to imagine any government should cater to my wants. I'm not four years old. It is not about me. They do have to help provide a few universal and basic needs, which are far less than 'wants'.

[Big Guy]

That is ridiculous.

Elect the Party that promises the most, because Canadians want lots of things? Oh wait, that is what just happened.

I want a government that has a plan to ensure that a) our country is safe and secure maintains a reasonable social contract and environment that serves us all equitably, fairly and sustainably c) has the plan to create enough wealth in an economy that can support both a and b in the long term.

I am not stupid enough to imagine any government should cater to my wants. I'm not four years old. It is not about me. They do have to help provide a few universal and basic needs, which are far less than 'wants'.

So if a party promises you that if you elect them then they promise:

a) our country will be safe and secure

b ) to maintain a reasonable social contract and environment that serves us all equitably, fairly and sustainably

c) to have a plan to create enough wealth in an economy that can support both a and b in the long term.

Then they get your vote?

So if your views are shared by the majority of voters and the the Conservative party decides to follow your "direction", then they will get elected.!

See, I told you it was simple.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Big Guy

[overthere]

So if a party promises you that if you elect them then they promise:

a) our country will be safe and secure

b ) to maintain a reasonable social contract and environment that serves us all equitably, fairly and sustainably

c) to have a plan to create enough wealth in an economy that can support both a and b in the long term.

Then they get your vote?

So if your views are shared by the majority of voters and the the Conservative party decides to follow your "direction", then they will get elected.!

See, I told you it was simple.

I don't expect any party to follow my direction, I expect them to provide a plan and I then decide whether I accept that enough to trust them with my vote and my tax money.

You are confusing leadership with political opportunism.

[Argus]

Canadians vote in those people who promise to do what the majority of Canadians want.

"What direction the Conservatives Should Take?" How about figuring out what the majority of Canadians want and change their platform to satisfy those wants? Then the majority will vote for Conservatives and they will again be in power.

Seems simple enough to me.

"Look, there go the masses marching down that street. I must rush to get in front of them. After all, I am their leader!"

A real leader has a vision and a set of beliefs as to where to take things to make them better. His or her job, then, is to put that vision and those beliefs out there in a coherent, understandable and convincing way in order to bring people around to understanding that his or her way is the right one.

If all you're going to do is poll people on what they want and then offer that to them, how can anyone describe that as leadership? What purpose are you even serving other than self-enrichment?

[dre]

I think that the Conservatives should just keep doing what they are doing. Keep playing wack-a-mole with their social conservatives, womb-goons, etc, and stay positioned as a viable option to form the government when the LPC implodes again.