Jack Layton

[mirror]

How many of you know that the CAW auto workers get  EI along with company supplimentary $$ to allow them to take home 90% of their take home pay when they get laid off?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You asked who else claims supplementary benefits while collecting EI. Many companies, both private and public, top up maternity benefits, which are also funded through EI at 55% of salary. Some do it as a bonus after the mat leave ends, some do it as an ongoing benefit throughout. Its seen as an incentive for mothers to return to their jobs after their mat leave expires. I received just such a bonus 12 years ago, working for a University. My point is that CAW is not alone in offering top ups.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. And what exactly is wrong with that policy? Why are people in Canada so afraid that someone else is going to be treated well?

Melanie, Were you in a union that ensured you received good and appropriate benefits?

I am so tired of the right wing nonsense attacking unions as if they were some kind of plague. Without unions, the workers of our society we would not have weekends, holidays, sick leave, vacation pay, overtime pay, maternity benefits, etc.

Are some of you people that stupid to not want that and to not realize that you deserve that?

[Melanie_]

Melanie, Were you in a union that ensured you received good and appropriate benefits?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. I'm not always in favour of unions, but that one worked well for me.

And now for an advertisement....

If you are interested in the history of unions, or just want to see a great play, see "Strike!" if you ever get the chance. Its the story of the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919.

[err]

And, your claims about Europe... how about naming a country...

Spain, France, Germany and Britian until Thatcher fixed the place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you say "Thatcher fixed the place", I take it to mean the same kind of fixing that a veteranarian does to a female dog ???

I have British relatives who would tell you of the havoc that Thatcher played on their economy... making all of the working class poorer... privatizing gas, electricity, rail service with the result of massive escalation in cost of living.... making the divide between the rich and the rest much larger...

Spain, France, and Germany all treat all of their people much better than you would have our government treat ours.

Their child care programs are outstanding compared to anything in North America (Ask Hilary Clinton who authored a report to the US government saying so)

They have true universal health care - everyone is covered.

They have family allowance plans, where every family receives so much money per child. For instance, in Germany, 10 years ago, a family with three children would receive about $350/month in family allowance (a rich family would only get $228/month).

These countries pay between 90 and 100% of wages for maternity leave for up to a year...

In short, these European countries treat their people very well. They have excellent support systems so nobody left out. They have health care, income protection, housing allowances, and so much more that we do.

Granted, they don't have as many SUVs, or ATVs. They don't work around the clock to afford the toys that North Americans need to prove to their neighbours that they are successful. But they don't have the millions living in abject poverty that North America has..... poverty that comes with right-wing, conservative-type success-driven ideology....

Maybe they have smaller GNP's, but they live better than the average North American...

[mirror]

Melanie, Were you in a union that ensured you received good and appropriate benefits?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. I'm not always in favour of unions, but that one worked well for me.

And now for an advertisement....

If you are interested in the history of unions, or just want to see a great play, see "Strike!" if you ever get the chance. Its the story of the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have heard a lot about the Winnipeg General Strike. If it is ever shown on TV please let us know.

Rght wingers hypocritically complain about government, but they have no idea what left wingers have been subjected to.

Have right wingers ever been beaten or stomped by mounted police/corporations/government on horseback? I doubt it.

But those poor right wingers. Imagine they have to share their wealth with people less privileged in society. Wow! How painful that must be!

[Guest eureka]

Today's right wingers have not been subjected to those things but their parents and grandparents were.

The counterattack of the Right Wing only began in 1971 with the funding of Foundations and "Think Tanks" in the USA by certain wealthy families. These bodies had the founding purpose of producing propaganda to attack "Liberalism filling the void in the intellectual level of the Right Wing with paid academics and journalists (prostitutes). There was also a deliberate crusade to take control of the media and to establish Right Wing propaganda mills there (most newspapers, Fox etc.).

This was a reaction to the devastating defeat of the extreme Right led by Goldwater.

It succeeded very quickly since the "Left" did not have the financial resources to compete, and, in less than ten years, we (the US) got its poster boy of the Right in Ronald Reagan. In Canada, we had the Fraser Institute and the C.D. Howe Institute and most newspapers.

[Canuck E Stan]

And what "MOST" of the papers that are right wing are you talking about? Give me a bunch of those right wing papers so I can start reading them.

[BHS]

How many of you know that the CAW auto workers get  EI along with company supplimentary $$ to allow them to take home 90% of their take home pay when they get laid off?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You asked who else claims supplementary benefits while collecting EI. Many companies, both private and public, top up maternity benefits, which are also funded through EI at 55% of salary. Some do it as a bonus after the mat leave ends, some do it as an ongoing benefit throughout. Its seen as an incentive for mothers to return to their jobs after their mat leave expires. I received just such a bonus 12 years ago, working for a University. My point is that CAW is not alone in offering top ups.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, for maternity leave, which only applies under limited circumstances. The point that was being made was in regard to layoff situations in general, and the question still stands.

[err]

And what "MOST" of the papers that are right  wing  are you talking about? Give me a bunch of those right wing papers so I can start reading them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The National Post,

The Globe and Mail,

The Toronto Sun...

The Financial Post..

Anything that Conrad Black owned: Accorging to the CBC, "By the 1990s Hollinger controlled 60 per cent of Canadian newspaper titles, as well as hundreds of dailies in the U.S., England, Australia and Israel. "

However, I don't recomend that you read them, as their obvious bias and distortion of facts could have you leaning to the right.... I recommend the Toronto Star....

[BHS]

And what "MOST" of the papers that are right  wing  are you talking about? Give me a bunch of those right wing papers so I can start reading them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The National Post,

The Globe and Mail,

The Toronto Sun...

The Financial Post..

Anything that Conrad Black owned: Accorging to the CBC, "By the 1990s Hollinger controlled 60 per cent of Canadian newspaper titles, as well as hundreds of dailies in the U.S., England, Australia and Israel. "

However, I don't recomend that you read them, as their obvious bias and distortion of facts could have you leaning to the right.... I recommend the Toronto Star....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Financial Post is part of the National Post, which has been seriously watered down since the Aspers took over and is hardly worth reading now. I cancelled my subscription the first day that Buzz Hargrove had his new weekly column introduced in the Financial Post. I'm not paying money to a paper that validates unionist trash talk.

The Globe and Mail should get some sort of award for "Most Boring Paper In Print". Even their crossword puzzle sucks. They switched to a colour format to match the National Post. Should have stuck with the old black and white. Calling the G&M "right wing" is like calling pablum spicy.

The Toronto Sun used to have some interesting columnists, almost all of whom were picked up by the National Post when it premiered, and almost all of whom have now moved on to other things. It's 90% advertising, 8% sports and 2% crappy articles about life in downtown Toronto, with the odd acknowledgement of major world news events, which even then are just as likely to be overshadowed by updates about hockey negotiations. Isn't worth lining the bird's cage with.

Since it appears your criteria for "right wing" means "not raving leftist nonsense" you should have included Macleans and Chatelaine to your list, as well as every other paper or magazine that stays in business without devoting 30% of it's print area to ads for escort services.

[Canuck E Stan]

National Post-Left Wing+All Papers owned by the Aspers

"Chretin is the best Prime Minister in the history of Canada-Asper"

Globe&Mail-Left Wing

Toronto Star-Left Wing

Toronto Sun-Right wing

[Riverwind]

National Post-Left Wing+All Papers owned by the Aspers

"Chretin is the best Prime Minister in the history of Canada-Asper"

Globe&Mail-Left Wing

Toronto Star-Left Wing

Toronto Sun-Right wing

You are either so far to the right that you think Pat Robertson is a leftie or you have not actually read the papers in question. The National Post is deliberately right wing/pro-conservative - the aspers kept the editoral slant when they took over, probably because they figure there is a market for it. I also believe that Aspers' son who took over after Izzie's death is not an ardent Liberal supporter.

The G&M is economically right wing but socially liberal. In other words, the G&M is right wing on the issues that are actually important.

[cybercoma]

Exactly. And what exactly is wrong with that policy? Why are people in Canada so afraid that someone else is going to be treated well?

Melanie, Were you in a union that ensured you received good and appropriate benefits?

I am so tired of the right wing nonsense attacking unions as if they were some kind of plague. Without unions, the workers of our society we would not have weekends, holidays, sick leave, vacation pay, overtime pay, maternity benefits, etc.

Are some of you people that stupid to not want that and to not realize that you deserve that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually without unions the Employment Standards Act would take care of holidays, sick leave, vacation pay, overtime pay, maternity benefits, severance pay, termination pay, emergency leave days, maximum hours you can work in a week, minimum wage, etc. etc. etc.

Unions do nothing more than try and squeeze every last drop of profit from companies until they collapse upon themselves and they have no choice but to start firing people. Sit back and watch the auto industry, it started about 10 years ago and we're getting into particularly bad times now.

Employees benefits and money have to come from somewhere, it doesn't just grow on trees in an unlimited supply. The unfortunate reality you fail to realize is that resources are limited and when the corporation reaches the maximum it can allow for labour, every extra dollar that the employees get the corporation will take away from them in other areas.

You can't win, but luckily we have the Employment Standards Act to guarantee us particular benefits the government deems as necessary.

[BHS]

You are either so far to the right that you think Pat Robertson is a leftie or you have not actually read the papers in question. The National Post is deliberately right wing/pro-conservative - the aspers kept the editoral slant when they took over, probably because they figure there is a market for it. I also believe that Aspers' son who took over after Izzie's death is not an ardent Liberal supporter.

The G&M is economically right wing but socially liberal. In other words, the G&M is right wing on the issues that are actually important.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Pat Robertson jab is positively loopy, my friend. Every one of these papers has at least a modicum of socialist content. I guess your idea of "right wing" means "not so far to the left as to be economically unviable". Whatever.

It depends on which of Izzie's son's you're talking about. I don't know anything about Leonard, but I remember reading David's defence of Chretien in the Post in 2001 which made it clear how he felt about the Liberal party. Here's Peter Worthington writing his reponse in the Toronto Sun at the time (first article I found via Google, haven't got all day you know):

Peter Worthington

[Riverwind]

The Financial Post is part of the National Post, which has been seriously watered down since the Aspers took over and is hardly worth reading now. I cancelled my subscription the first day that Buzz Hargrove had his new weekly column introduced in the Financial Post. I'm not paying money to a paper that validates unionist trash talk.

I find your comments quite disturbing even though I share your opinion of Buzz Hargrove. I don't understand how it is possible for you to be properly informed on issues if you refuse to read or listen to anything that does not re-enforce your own prejudices. My definition of a good media outlet is somewhere that will give me the story from many different points of view. The fact that Buzz gets a column in an otherwise right wing rag is a sign that the Post is doing its job as a media outlet.

[BHS]

I find your comments quite disturbing even though I share your opinion of Buzz Hargrove. I don't understand how it is possible for you to be properly informed on issues if you refuse to read or listen to anything that does not re-enforce your own prejudices?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose I could ask the same question of you. I mean, what makes you think I don't read a broad spectrum of views? That's pretty presumptuous of you. I'll have you know that I sometimes even sink so low as to read the local free papers whose editors are card carrying Trotskyists, if only for a good laugh.

Buzz Hargrove is paid a luxurious wage to argue everything from his union's point of view. He is as objective about the topics he choses to write about as is a lawyer arguing a legal case. I don't feel the need to subsidize his income by buying a Liberal-owned newspaper that feels the need to act as his podium in an effort to provide a balanced view. There are plenty of socialist writers out there who come by their views honestly, that could have been hired instead, but they chose him. I strongly disagreed with this decision, and so I cancelled my subscription. I still do buy the paper from the stand on occasion, and if his article is in the Financial Post I typically read it.

[Riverwind]

I suppose I could ask the same question of you. I mean, what makes you think I don't read a broad spectrum of views?

Your original post suggested that you cancelled your post subscription because they hard the nerve to print a left wing view point. It was not clear that you had a specific problem with Buzz.

[Canuck E Stan]

Sparhawk, you said:

"The G&M is economically right wing but socially liberal. In other words, the G&M is right wing on the issues that are actually important."

What are the important issues you are referring to?

Economic news is financial news,most of it doesn't reflect anything that can be changed in opinions. Most news that the media hypes on is the social news.When was the last time the media made an issue about economics in this country and the way the government delt with it. Even today's story on Bank mergers going to be approved by the Liberals didn't receive much play.So what are the issues that are so called actually important that makes this paper right wing? This paper is totally left from my readings of it.

[err]

Unions do nothing more than try and squeeze every last drop of profit from companies until they collapse upon themselves and they have no choice but to start firing people.  Sit back and watch the auto industry, it started about 10 years ago and we're getting into particularly bad times now.

Really... GM's going to stop making cars... Ford too... ... and what's next, the LCBO is going to fold due to their union ???

You can't win, but luckily we have the Employment Standards Act to guarantee us particular benefits the government deems as necessary.

I thought you couln't stand those "commie" programs that force their ideals on companies... and you used the word "luckily"... why, if I hadn't read the paragraph just above, I would have thought you were a union man... You aught to make up your mind... so you don't confuse us all about what's good and bad...

[Riverwind]

Really... GM's going to stop making cars... Ford too... ... and what's next, the LCBO is going to fold due to their union ???

Actually, G&M and Ford will likely go bankrupt because of their unions that refuse to discuss serious changes to their wage/benefit packages. The LCBO can't go bankrupt which is why 'free-collective' bargining does not exist in the public sector - that is why I think we need a law makes it illegal for public sector unions to demand more than the private sector would get for equivalent work.

[mirror]

The NDP Trap

Out of the midst of some of the most cynical and depressing politics I have ever witnessed, conventional wisdom among the media elites and pundits has it that Jack Layton and the NDP acquitted themselves pretty well.

With Harper hyperventilating over vote timing, Martin bribing every bribable entity in sight and Duceppe looking like a wolf getting ready to feast on the chickens, Layton called for calm and exhorted all parties to make Parliament work. Alone on the high road, even Martin took note of Layton’s applause, and started moderating his own partisan rants.

The deal the NDP stuck with the Liberals to support the government in exchange for budget amendments was also given a glowing verdict by those in the know. Above and beyond another demonstration of constructive behaviour, Layton was able to draw attention to his priorities in a way 100 speeches on rubber chicken circuit, never could.

On a broader front, there are other factors as well that conspire to give the New Democrats a lift in voter assessment. Outside of scandals, social issues – an area of traditional NDP strength– dominate the public opinion agenda. Concern and unease over the status quo is voiced most vociferously among the young, the old, the poor and women – all constituencies that have shown a historic tendency to gravitate towards the NDP when the conditions are right.

Similarly, Layton in many ways is viewed as the most well-rounded and complete of the four political leaders. He has avoided any hint of dishonesty that stains both Harper (over his “hidden agenda”) and Martin. He is seen as significantly more personable than the Conservative leader and more principled than the Liberal leader; more charismatic than any of them; and is believed to hold values that are every bit as resonant with the voters as are his opponents’.

These factors have generated unprecedented levels of second choice for the NDP. Liberal voters are about twice as likely to cite them as an alternative to their first choice, and by a smaller margin even more Conservatives prefer the NDP over the Liberals.

I just have a feeling that the NDP are going to spring loose and exceed their wildest expectations. Don't you? Anyway the next round of polling numbers which should be coming out soon should give us some indication of where we are going in this country. We should be in full blown election mode within a few months.

[mirror]

PoliticsWatch's Best of the Session

Layton shone during the last session of Parliament, his first by-the-way.

[err]

Nice quote, Mirror....

[shoop]

Layton shone during the last session of Parliament, his first by-the-way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does anybody remember Layton's promise right after the election that the Liberals would get no support from his caucus without solid strides being made in democratic reform?

Bought off for a one-time cash payment.

shine on you crazy diamond!

[err]

Layton shone during the last session of Parliament, his first by-the-way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does anybody remember Layton's promise right after the election that the Liberals would get no support from his caucus without solid strides being made in democratic reform?

Bought off for a one-time cash payment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Layton's actions appealed to the majority of Canadians.... He could have just played like Harper, but he came across as having positive intentions instead. Layton got his concession from Martin, and won a victory for Canadians. Given the positions of the three major leaders right now, only one shines through as honorable.... Jack Layon....

[mirror]

Biggest Winner

A day after election night 2004, NDP Leader Jack Layton appeared to be one MP short of holding the balance of power in the minority parliament. Layton had increased his party's vote totals by nearly one million but only saw an increase of a handful of seats in Parliament.

Layton spent much of the first seven months of minority Parliament complaining about how the Liberals were not cooperating with or listening to the other parties, especially his NDP, and he often accused Prime Minister Paul Martin of behaving as if he had a majority.

With the Liberals plummeting in the polls and the Bloc and Conservatives threatening to force a confidence vote, Martin took to the airwaves on April 21 and called on the opposition leaders not to force an election before Justice John Gomery published his report on Adscam.

While Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe both criticized Martin in their televised responses,  Layton took a different approach.

"So I say to Paul Martin: Bring the budget to a vote. Take out the surprise corporate tax cuts and invest that money in things people want. The NDP is in no rush to judge on the scandal. But we are in a rush to get something done through getting a better budget passed."

Less than a week later, Layton and Martin successfully brokered a deal to see $4.5 billion in new social spending added to the budget in exchange for the NDP's support on confidence matters until the budget received Royal Assent in the Senate.

Layton may only have 19 MPs in the House, but he has been able to use those seats to accomplish his party's objectives.

Quite a remarkable achievement when one thinks about it. Layton has only been in the House of Commons for one year and he sure is making quite a positve impact on Canadians. If I remember correctly I think it took Broadbent three elections before he reached his zenith back in the late eighties.