….I will mess with you in some unspecified way until I am done — and make no doubt, my friend, that it will continue to remain indeterminate what being “done” would entail in this instance, inasmuch as I am using the past participle of “do” without actually giving any — non-Delphic — indication of what specific actions I would necessarily have had to have completed in order to….
Stephen Harper, on today’s meeting with Michael Ignatieff to discuss possible E.I. reforms:
“It is very difficult to respond to an ultimatum that contains no ultimatum…Usually you say ‘do X, or else.’ You don’t just say ‘or else.'”
favill:
Unless I’m mistaken, Eastern Europe is in even worse shape than Western Europe and the US.
By fortunate historical formulations, Canada has the best-managed and best-defined banking systems.
Europe just emulated the US without fully understanding the consequences, since they saw lending to people who could not afford payments through the filter of their social justice blinders.
Too bad, so sad.
favill – I have heard these arguments before. No doubt there is some truth in this. But think about how strong the CPC was after the fall election. Harper then undid all of his gains by the (politically) stupid move of the $1.95 cutoff, and then by demonizing Quebec to fight off the coalition attempt.
Those were mistakes of partisanship and judgment.I said so then, and I say it now. I was pilloried for saying this at the time, but meantime a much smarter and more politically experienced person than myself, Tom Flanagan has said the same.
More recentely we have the example of the attack ads on Ignatief. Most people now seems to agree that they were a waste of money and probably did more harm than good. Again, attempts to bring this up at the time led to virulent criticism of any who dared question the ads.
I will continue to support the CPC with my vote, and on the various forums where I spend so much time, though my donations now go only to the free speech cause. However, it disappoints me when I see that what I think is constructive criticism of some decisions made by the CPC leads to ad hominen attacks and mindless jingoism. A true friend of the CPC and Conservative agenda will provide thoughtful criticism, and I will continue to try to do so. To say that Mr. Harper has made no mistakes in the past 9 months is silly, and to say that his stature has not declined since the fall election is self delusion.
There seems to be some problem at the PMO – too many “yes men”, and not enough people who Mr. Harper can go to for constructive dissenting opinions. I know from work and life experience that this kind of environment leads to critical errors being made. I will continue to attempt to help through support where deserving, and constructive criticism where I think mistakes are being made.
Tony W,
I do look around and my observations make me come to the conclusions I pose here. You may want all the hard-core right-leaning legislation and policies right now, however, a pragmatist would look at that and say. The Conservatives are in a minority government position and to bring these items to the table would be political suicide.
Remember all those real people who have lost jobs? When you’re making $80k/yr at the factory and you get laid off it’s probably the most fearful thing people with families and bills must face. Do you really think they would be beholden to the Conservatives if they make receiving EI harder? Or, better yet if the Conservatives did not give any money to GM or Chrysler–would those workers feel any gratitude to the Conservatives?
When people face real hardship, they will follow anyone who promises them an easier life. That’s how Adolf Hitler came into political power in Germany during the 30’s. What we don’t want is a demoralized and scared Canadian population voting for the party which promises them that they’ll take care of them by taxing the “rich” even more. The “problem” with Democracy in Canada is that everyone of age gets a vote including criminals and people on welfare. Guess for whom they’re voting?
~~favill~~
The Liberals can’t possibly be serious about EI reform, it would be like the Chinese communists encouraging freedom of religion.
Taking our EI premiums and recycling them into patronage is so deeply ingrained in the Liberal psyche that not even the prospect of an election victory can dislodge this foundational truism.
set you free: “MJ: There’s a practical component that’s necessitated by the fact Canada currently has a minority parliament.”
Exactly what I was referring to when I wrote that “Some will say that Harper had no choice, that he had to spend to stay in power.” However, the argument that he had no choice but to spend at the astonishing rate that he did because he had a minority govt. is weak.
There is such a thing, after all, as sticking to your principles and then explaining, arguing and persuading why it’s best to let spending increase by “only” about 3-3.5%. And those arguments are all the easier to make because you could then afford to cut taxes (i.e., cut them much more than the govt. did) at the same time that you’re explaining your choices.
It’s beyond me how a govt. can increase spending at a roughly 8% rate per annum and call itself “conservative.” We’re letting the Conservative party off the hook big time when we say that “they didn’t have another choice.”
Good points from old Lori: “it disappoints me when I see that what I think is constructive criticism of some decisions made by the CPC leads to ad hominen attacks and mindless jingoism. A true friend of the CPC and Conservative agenda will provide thoughtful criticism …. To say that Mr. Harper has made no mistakes in the past 9 months is silly, and to say that his stature has not declined since the fall election is self delusion.”
Old Lori – I don’t think that Harper demonized Quebec with regard to the Coalition. He didn’t demonize Quebec or the Quebecois. He pointed out the truth.
The FACT that the coalition had set up a political party, whose members are confined to one province’s electorate, out of the reach of 80% of the Canadian electorate, to keep this Coalition in power – without an election – was a vicious attack against Canadian’s democratic rights.
Remember, the agenda of this coalition was to take power, without an election, and to prevent any election for at least 18 and more months, by setting up the Bloc to guarantee, without reading the Motions, that they would support all confidence Motions. I repeat: without reading those Motions. That’s a violation of their duty as MPs, to base the vote on the Motion, not on a prior political agreement.
The fact that the Bloc is located in Quebec doesn’t mean that pointing out how undemocratic such a setup was, is ‘demonizing Quebec’.
As for the $1.95 subsidy, my own view is that it is reprehensible for we taxpayers of Canada to fund political parties that we do not support; that includes the Bloc, which receives almost all its funding from the Canadian taxpayer.
My own view is that Harper knew that Dion, Layton and Duceppe were planning a coup, and he inserted that 1.95 threat, to ‘smoke them out’ into the open. Result? A very public, with lots of rallies and outspoken rejection by Canadians across the country, who told The Three Plotters that Canadians had not voted for a coalition and did not want one. That stopped the coalition agenda.
MJ:
Canada committed, at the G20 meetings, to ‘stimulate’ the economy at the rate of 3% of GDP.
Although I would agree that smacks too much of ‘me too-ism,’ that’s the way it is.
The opposition is accusing the Conservatives of foot-dragging, which is a reasonable way to buy time.
The additional spending, the auto bailout, brought the announced deficit to $50 billion.
Thanks for nothing, Obama.
The handling of the coalition by PMSH was far from demonising. The politically correct would prefer that the truth about the seperatist movement is not discussed openly, that we are to just accept the Bloc as another political party. Prime Minister Harper handled the coalition with Canada and Canadians best interest in mind.
It’s hard not ‘feel’ demonised…when the chip is continually on the shoulder.
Now that we know Iggy is all bark (and the MSM lo and behold are catching on) let’s watch the government move on some real CPC policies.
I always marvel at the people who think that fourty years of socialist programming can be countermanded by three years of a minority government.
No one in his right mind would want an election during the only few weeks of great weather we have in this country. The fact that Ignatieff and his lagging party would even think it means he doesn’t care about this country and should head back to the country he really loves- the US- and watch things fall apart there.
Have a great summer, everybody!
My frustration regarding Quebec is enormous, but “handling” Quebec is a painful reality of Canadian politics. It can be done.
Harper had actually done a pretty decent job out of it. It seemed to me that very aggressive response that emerged once the coalition materialized had had a lot of anti-Quebec rhetoric in it, and smacked a bit of panic. We all panicked, obviously, when faced with a nightmare of the NDP and Bloc influencing a Liberal government with no ability of the CPC to interfere so it’s hard to fault Harper for that, but he is supposed to be the chess player, not us.
Three years of relatively good progress in Quebec were lost in those few weeks.
It’s funny how many of the same people who say that we have to compromise with Conservative policy because of the reality of being a minority government in a socially left of centre nation are the same ones who feel that should not work around or with Quebec and that we need to be blunt with Quebec.
ET – I for one have not accepted the explanation that Harper smoked a conspiracy into the open with his $1.95. I’m not one for conspiracy theories – there are too many loose lips in politics. Everything leaks. The notion that three parties could have coordinated this with barely a whisper coming out is too hard to accept. Especially seeing how incompetent Dion’s liberals were at organizing anything.
Anyway, I would like to move forward from here. The CPC and Mr. Harper need to use this opportunity to show Canadians that they are above pure partisan politics going into the next election – whether it be in the fall, or more likely next year when the Liberals have a bit more money in the bank.
“The Great State of New Jersey mandates that Company principals pay into EI if they receive a salary. The State does not allow said Principles to receive benefits.”
It’s the same here. My wife had an incorporated business consisting of just the two of us. Because we were incorporated, we were deemed to be ’employees of the corporation’ as well as owners.
We had to pay EI for our ’employee status’ yet were ineligible to ever collect.
Now multiply this inequity by hundreds of thousands of similar ‘mom and pop’ operations!
set you free: “MJ: Canada committed, at the G20 meetings, to ‘stimulate’ the economy at the rate of 3% of GDP. Although I would agree that smacks too much of ‘me too-ism,’ that’s the way it is.”
Not sure how that justifies the spending spree that the govt. has gone on under Harper (and Martin — but we’re not talking about him right now) since he was first elected. The critical point is that the 7-8% increase in annual spending under Harper came *before* his govt. committed itself to “stimulation.”
By the way, by “spending” I’m not referring to tax cuts — worth emphasizing, since the left routinely perverts the nature of tax cuts in this way.
Yes, A. Cooper, it takes time to unravel the socialist state, but, from the economic point of view, the kind of spending that I’ve talked about is hardly a good start. Again, we shouldn’t be so easily satisfied or let the Conservatives off the hook so easily.
old lori – I’m not saying that Harper smoked the coalition into the open among the politicians; he made the coalition open to the Canadian public.
The Coalition had to go public to counter his ‘confidence vote’. Harper dared them to reject his ‘financial update’ as a confidence motion, and smoked them out to declare that IF they defeated his govt on that motion they didn’t want an election. Oh no, they wanted a coalition.
Being blunt with Quebec is not the same as the pragmatics of working in a minority government. Quebec has to also pragmatically, understand that it is in a federation and that, if it wants to stay in this federation, then, it has to offer something instead of insisting that all benefits flow one way – to it. I don’t think that constant financial pandering, constantly telling them that they are the backbone of Canada (as Ignatieff is now doing) and allowing them to have a separate political party in this federation, is ‘the way’ to deal with Quebec. Quebec has to change.
MJ:
Correct. Spending was increasing, but at a smaller percentage than long-term debt was being paid off.
At the same time, the GST was lowered 2%, income and corporate taxes were lowered in the early 2008 budget.
Lowering taxes is considered a more productive, since it leaves more money in the hands of individuals. Yet, there’s no credit being given to this pre-emptive strike against a looming recession.
Had the depth of the US problem not been as deep and Canada not sideswiped, the Bank of Canada and by extention the govenrment positioned itself for a minimal effect.
Unfortunately, the US is really screwed up and it believes it can spend its was to prosperity.
Bad for the US. Kinda bad for us, but not as bad as the US, Western and Eastern Europe.
set you free: “MJ: Correct. Spending was increasing, but at a smaller percentage than long-term debt was being paid off.”
I’ve never seen “increase in rate of spending vs percentage of federal debt being paid off” being used as an economic indicator. I don’t think it’s ever used in this way, and I don’t know why you’re trying to do so now. I don’t know what it would indicate.
In any case, it is absolutely *not* the case that the Conservatives were paying off a larger percentage of the federal debt each year than the percentage by which they were increasing annual expenditures. You’ll need to provide a source for this statement. My guestimate is that they were paying down around 3% of the federal debt rach year.
“At the same time, the GST was lowered 2%, income and corporate taxes were lowered in the early 2008 budget.”
This is what I mean anout being too easily satisfied. The Conservatives could have done so much more on the tax side *if only* they had reined in spending. But they didn’t. Think about the position we’d be in right now if they had.
Iggy does not know what he is talking about – his argument is a red herring at best.
Unemplyment upports are already in place for the self employed.
EI has evolved into a full blown “Employment Industry”.
“Through existing LMAs, as announced in Canada’s Economic Action Plan, the Government is investing an additional $500 million in a two-year Strategic Training and Transition Fund (available in fiscal 2009-10 and 2010-11). The Fund supports provincial and territorial initiatives that help meet the training needs of workers in affected communities and sectors so that they can stay in their jobs or move to new jobs, while offering provinces and territories the flexibility to design programming that best meets their needs. The Fund ensures that these Canadians, whether or not they qualify for Employment Insurance benefits, are eligible to participate in the training or other employment initiatives that they need during difficult times.”
For futher information on LMA’s and employment programs:
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/employment/partnerships/lma/index.shtml
Just to add to the MSM slagging, Don Martin today said that Iggy’s media halo had slipped badly, and that he was acting more like Hamlet than a king.
And, on my 2 hour bus rides from Richmond Hill to downtown Toronto, I end up reading 3 papers a day. One of them is the Star, which I get mostly for the puzzles and classifieds, but I’ve skimmed the rest. I have to say, the columns by Chantal Hebert I’ve read seem balanced. She criticizes Harper, but she gives Iggy the gears too. And she has no time for the NDP or Bloc, at least in the columns I’ve read.
ET: “Quebec has to change”. Indeed, but good luck on that score. As long as our leaders pander to their every whim it will never happen.
It’s a national disgrace that province, rich in resources, has remained in the have-not category.
Listening to the Bloc in the HOC demanding more and more with no consideration for the rest of the country is beyond reason.
The people of Quebec have a choice, they seem to go for the party which will keep the threat of separation alive and continue with what is simply political blackmail.
I have always said the EI system is Wrong, I have always felt that their should be No Waiting Period I have made this comment to many a local MP over the years.
I have also questioned, When you are in the Armed Forces you pay into the EI system, However because you are a basicaly a Contract worker you cannot collect EI when your stint is up. So why pay into it if you cannot collect.
I recently as far back as january talked to my local mp larry miller about these 2 issues. I want to make a point also I have Never Collected At all over my working yrs & their should also be a plan or system in place that you can draw on those monies you paid into when you retire Regardless if you ever collected or Not it’s your money.
The beurocrats will argue it is an Insurance like home or car Hoping that you may never have to use it if something happens, However when Governments play with the EI funds to show a balanced budget that is Not Insurance.
Hope my socialistic side is not showing too much, Its just that this EI has been a touchy subject to me for yrs & i view it as nothing more then a Easy Grab of Taxpayers monies.
Favill you need to stop reading between the lines, your not very good at it.
I did not expect Harper to instantly attempt to pass all the things he promised. I also didnot expect him to turn into liberal-lite.
As much as I don’t like Garth Turner I have to agree with him that Harper screwed up right from the get go by bringing 2 outsiders into cabnet. The more important question is why the rest of the wienies of the CPC let him do it.
His pandering to Quebec cost the CPC more votes than it got him. Quebec in the end rejected him because they saw more free money through the PQ. Quebec will always vote where the free lunch is. They are intitled. Just ask them.
He even screwed up on the $1.95 deal. I think if that had been presented properly he could have shamed enough pols to vote for it.
As for democercy I think the bail out or GM & Crysler is what democercy is not. right or wrong if the polls are correct the vast majority of Canadians are aganst it. On the other hand as I’ve apparently payed into their pension as much as they have so maybe I could get the same pension.
Liberal bagman Rossi: it’s a “hold-up”.
Calling Alfonso Cashbagliano.
>>> “Until Elections Canada is satisfied that the packages aren’t really a thinly-veiled donation to party headquarters, the candidates won’t receive their election expenses rebates worth a total of about $3.5 million to the cash-hungry party.”
“Rossi called the hold-up a “no more than a nuisance” and insisted it had no bearing on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s decision to come to a deal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to avert a summer election.”
…-
“Liberal expense claims questioned by Elections Canada
OTTAWA – Elections Canada is scrutinizing almost $800,000 worth of expenses filed by Liberal candidates in last fall’s election campaign, The Canadian Press has learned.
The elections watchdog has asked the Liberal party to produce detailed invoices and documentation to prove that a mandatory riding services package was actually worth the $2,500 each candidate was required to pay for it .
Until Elections Canada is satisfied that the packages aren’t really a thinly-veiled donation to party headquarters, the candidates won’t receive their election expenses rebates, worth a total of about $3.5 million to the cash-hungry party.
“Until that’s resolved, then it’s holding the process up somewhat,” Liberal party national director Rocco Rossi confirmed in an interview Wednesday.
Rossi called the hold-up a “no more than a nuisance” and insisted it had no bearing on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s decision to come to a deal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to avert a summer election.
He said Elections Canada is simply being more rigorous than it used to be in demanding proof of expenditures, as a result of the so-called in-and-out scandal.
In that case, which is still being fought out in court, the Conservative party transferred cash into and out of local riding campaigns during the 2006 election, ostensibly to pay for national advertising. Elections Canada maintains the scheme was designed to allow the party to skirt its national election spending limit and Tory candidates to claim rebates on expenses they didn’t actually incur.
Rossi said he welcomes Elections Canada’s scrutiny.
“I’m all for transparency. Bring it on,” he said.
“We’ve got nothing to hide. There is no in and out here. There were legitimate services provided to the riding associations that we can show the costing of.”
The riding services packages included buttons, posters, brochures, photos of the leader, and templates for lawn signs, web sites and letterhead.
Elections Canada wants the party to account not only for the value of outside suppliers but also to break down the salary costs of party staffers who assembled the packages.
Rossi was somewhat less sanguine in an email sent earlier this month to all candidates’ official agents, obtained by The Canadian Press. In that missive, Rossi referred to the “absurdity” of Elections Canada’s request.
“As an example, we feel that this request could be compared to the Canada Revenue Agency requesting a full breakdown, including copies of invoices from suppliers plus internal labour and design costs, from a vehicle manufacturer for the sale of a vehicle to an end user rather than accepting an invoice from a dealership,” he wrote.”
http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/702705
…-
In other news, Football is Back.
Ode to Iggy.
Dropkick me Stephen
Through the goalpo$t$ of $trife,
End over end,
Make me a piece in your master game plan …*
(H/T/ Bobby Bare)
ET: – normally I find your arguments well reasoned, but this one about the coaltion being a Bloc plot and PMSH using the $1.95 subsidy to smoke out the opposition was just too much to take. He just plain blew it on both fronts.
No guff. You have been given bad advice. If you and your wife each own 50% of the company, then neither of you has to pay EI. Actually, the cut off is 40%. Anyone who owns 40% or more of the shares of a company need not pay EI premiums. In addition, there are a number of other provisions too complicated to get into in a blog post that say if you don’t deal at arms length with a person who owns 40% of the shares, you don’t pay (or obviously collect) EI.
Just wanted to set the facts straight.
ET
I’m amazed that what you said isn’t common knowledge that everyone knows. Remarkable that some people didn’t see that as the obvious. Think about it Terry, do you honestly think that PMSH is that dumb, that he wouldn’t have known what was up?
That the future of the country was in great danger by virtue of a non-democratic assumption of power, with iron clad rules stating that it had to stay in power for 18 months. Dion, that little Fu@# Layton and a separatist at the helm of MY Country. There would have been a shooting war.
Good on you for posting the obvious ET. I’ve seen it before and have written about it before. It’s so obvious that I thought everyone knew exactly what it was.
bryanr, I agree with you – EI is a money grab & there are many hoops to jump through to secure the monies available for retraining etcand EI rates are ridiculously low and waiting periods much too long. An employer can fire you for any reason and ensure you are not able to make an EI claim.