As I said on the rutherford show today, the mid-term impact of this screw-up by iggy could spell the end of him as leader.

Compare his conduct to Dion. With dion as leader it was the dream team - dryden, rae iggy etc. The emphasis was not on the leader. With iggy as leader it is all iggy all the time. even their fundraising ads have the slogan "the power of one".

But iggy's support within the party is very shallow and concentrated to the right. The recent backing of the removal of the faint hope clause was not well-liked by the left of the party.

And now Iggy looks just as ineffectual and even less interested in the country than dion.(If he is so concerned about the country why didn't he call harper to talk about it during the last five months?)

And the MSM looks to have lost its patience with him.

If the economy shows solid signs of recovery this fall the opportunity for the liberals to oust the CP will have been misssed for at least a couple of years and that interlude could see the knives come out against Iggy.

Count Beetlebrow McBean is one tough dude. Maybe when he's done messin' he'll have his second, Minion McGollam visicount sur la Vichy Ridge administer the coup de grace by running over PMSH with his non north american car. Sad really.

I have come to the conclusion, and there is plenty of evidence to support it, that Iggy is scared to death of becoming the Prime Minister of ANYTHING - let alone Canada.

Think about it. Those on the Right have been saying for a long time now that Obummer had never even run a hot dog stand let alone the greatest economy the world has ever seen. Can we not make the same statement of Michnettief? He might possibly not even be able to balance his own cheque-book let alone that of the nation.

What is it about this man that can make people believe that he can lead a nation? Given his lack of experience in running a business of any kind and in fact a void of experience in leading people in any type of endeavour, how can anyone come to the conclusion that this man can run an entire country?

We know (harrumf - harrumf) that Michael is an "intellectual" - after all he blasted the proposed "coalition government" but that was after he signed his name in approval of it. He is ahead in the polls, allthough only slightly.

When faced with the prospect of bringing down the government I just know that he would dearly love to do so - except for one thing - it just might lead to him becoming the Prime Minister of Canada.

That, my friends, quite frankly scares the shit out of him because, in his intellectuality, he knows that he is ill-suited for the job.

He would have to stop being a "teacher" and morph into a "doer". He just hasn't got the guts. He is THE great pretender.

The Decima/Harris poll result, with only 14% of Canadians surveyed wanting an election now, was a touch deflating for Ignatieff.

I just wish we had a Parliament bent on getting the job done. There's far too much heckling and posturing.

"I'm trying to make Parliament work for the benefit of those unemployed people. ... But he's got to listen to me with respect."

That's what it's all about with Count Igula...he's sure that he's so much smarter than the rest of us, but we're not all showering him with the respect that he deserves.

Of course, in academia you're most respected by two groups: your peers and your students. The latter simply because respect (real or feigned) is a prerequisite for a passing grade and the former...well, that's a club I wouldn't want to be a part of.

"...Mr. Ignatieff joked that "the idea of a long summer of discussions with Stephen Harper is not the nicest possible way to spend a summer, but for the sake of my country, I'm willing to try anything."

Gosh, anything? How about putting a sock in it for a change and letting the grown-ups who aren't just playing at being politicians get on with running the country rather than wasting a busy prime minister's time with nonsensical chest-beating, when the governance of the country is proceeding apace, when no one wants a summer election and neither the country nor the Liberal party can afford one, and when there is nothing resembling a substantive issue on the table that comes remotely close in the mind of any intelligent person to warranting forcing one?

Not shy at all about stroking himself in public, this guy, eh? If he wasn't such a tool I'd feel embarrassed for him.

When it comes right down to it, the Liberals see the writing on the wall. They know that the economy will recover, and that it is recovering right now. The Liberals also know that if they don’t get into power soon, that people may actually realize, “Hey, the Conservatives did a good job, and I’m still here.” And then a few more voters might say, “Maybe I’ll vote Blue next time!”

In 2006, the Liberals tasted defeat for the first time really since gaining power in 1993. They don’t like it! The Liberals want power – period! To them Canada isn’t issue number 1, nor are Canadians lives and families and jobs (i.e. Employment Insurance). Liberals just don’t care to sit in Opposition. If there is an election, that’s the reason for it.

It took awhile, but finally a fracturing between the Puffin and the MSM is beginning to appear. Even through their leftist eyes, they can see the farcical comedy that this pretender presents, and it finally dawns on them that he's not making them look very good either. Mind you, that's only a few. Afterall, it would take some major deprogramming to salvage a modicum of objectivity of this pack.

What a contrast! Stephan Harper coolly and calmly laying out the facts, while this nincompoop has the audacity to lecture and denigrate the PM and his govt as if he were grading a homework assignment from his lowly students in one of his 'Let's pretend you were a world exaulted ruler' BS classes. The ridiculousness is palpable, and everyone is starting to see it.

A palace revolt? Not yet, I say, but the leash is a little shorter and a few party insiders are wondering just what was in that Koolade anyway??

You don't just say, "or else... I'll go back to my real job near Boston"?

Ignatieff can't hold talks with PM Harper this summer, he has a European book tour and the plane is waiting. Cheers.

Funny how it doesn't matter a tinker's damn whether or not the voters want an election. The Libs are out and they want back in. Their poll numers are up! (What's up with that?)

7 months since the last election but who cares? The voters? Who the hell do they think they are? The coalition is way in the past. The new crisis is the fact that Iggnatieff is NOT IN THE DRIVERS SEAT!

It's time! The Great One is on the scene.

What a pathetic country

Harper is schooling Ignatieff on the dangers of initiating a gunfight without bullets in your gun.

Iggy wants to avoid an election at all costs and Harper does not want to go through this every three months.

Tomorrow they will come out with a commitment to reform EI that will secure the support of the Liberals until next spring.

Welcome to the new Coalition! heh

I think the PM is giving Biffy a quick course in Economics 101. No wonder he wants to learn something from anybody except the LIEberals.

Biffy, the self apointed dictator of the LIEberal party, has no policies, no vision, no money, and a "I" personality. At least DeYawn and Biffy have one thing in common - they know nothing about Canada, and we are not their students that jump at their every command - like the present LIEberals.

Lots of speculation this morning on the contents of the "meeting" to continue to hold meetings.
Lots of possible outcomes can be speculated on too.
-Iggy gets Harper to create a blue-ribbon panel on EI. But Iggy will have a tough sell with the "hawks"(Bob Rae) in the libearl caucus - Fife

Here's one I haven't heard yet, but if the "meetings" keep going for many more days it could become the talking point of the "Un-named source"(tm). That in a game-changing decision Harper has asked Iggy to form a coalition government for one year....utter speculation I assure you...think of the outcome of that?
Harper could have a tough sell on his hands for sure, but moreso Iggy, then of course the considerible consternation for the Bloc and the NDP. Of course the MSM would love such an outcome as they would be able to set up a garden industry around a coalition watch....but heres the rub regardless of the plethoria of speculation...all Harper has to do is rag the puck till the end of the week and have every CPC MP in the house come friday, becuase on friday every media org reporting on the vote will be counting heads and breathlessly trying to be first out of the gate to report on whether we have an election, or starting the countdown on the next liberal coup.

I have long since lost any confidence that any of these guys are doing anything of what they are doing because they care about Canada or Canadians.

Iggy has turned out to be a rather feeble opponent, and Mr. Harper has not had to raise his game, even if he could.

I long for the day, a couple of years ago, when I actually thought I had a principled leader.

I'm sure iggy is tired of all this politics stuff, although I don't think he's admitted it to himself, let alone the party.
A few more months of this dithering, then comes the announcement, the retreat out of Canada, then the coronation by the media as "the best prime minister we never had..."

Can Iggy sell it to Bob rae and the left wing of the caucus.

My suspicion is that even if they do then warfare will have begun again...and the HMCS Grit develops many many leaks. Weapons that point at the deck and not at the sky.

What has Kinsella had to say, I dont want to go there so any if anyone can pracee grand vizier that would be appreciated.

old Lori,

We do have a principled leader. One need only look at the stand he has made with respect to Israel and Canada's absence in some of the anti-Semitic conferences cloaked under the title of a UN working group.

With respect to domestic politics, Mr Harper's hands are tied because the very constituency which vote regularly for the NDP or the Liberals will never stray from the two. However, the Conservatives know that their constituency (except perhaps for Alberta) is fickle...much like yourself and would vote for another party in order to "punish" the Conservatives for not moving fast enough on tax reform, or dismantling the HRCs, or dismantling the gun registry, or getting rid of the CBC even though we all know that tabling such legislation to Parliament would trigger a motion of non-confidence. Thus, the optics of the Conservatives plunging the country into another election (at the cost of 100's of millions of dollars) during a recession would probably hand the reins of power to the Liberals. This is a democracy, and politics must be played no matter how much principle a leader has.

Therefore, I believe your comment is either an attempt at insulting PM Harper or not thought out to its logical conclusion.

~~favill~~

"One of those "yeses" involved changes to employment insurance that would allow self-employed Canadians to pay into the program."

And how many self-employed do not even show income they make nor file a return? That number of self-employed can not be counted using your toes iggy!

Igantieff has flipped on more topics then a fish out of water,EG: Tax increase yes no i did not say that.
MSM are already painting him as another weak leader, However on that point watch the Summer BBQ circus the MSM will try to change the color of the paint.
Are the Liberal KingPins seeing that the Mesiah is not the leader they thought they had. With just a coronation & no leadership campaign Are the Bosses still wanting for Bob Rae? Afterall he would be the favorite Puppet.
On the CP & PM's poll #'s tanking, History shows that any sitting Govt's popularity shrinks in times of recession, Until signs of recovery start & those disgruntled start to sway back with the turning tide.
After watching Power Play, I agree with Carole Taylor. The party seen as the party that caused an Election would get pummeled at the polls, And we are in unprecident times with voter distaste for a 5th election in as many yrs, They want to see governance & action to get the country working again. Canadians are sick & Tired of the threats to topple the govt.

iggy is toast. he has upset the MSM talking heads and they now realize he's weak and indecisive.

In other words, he's an easy target.

Let the opening barrage begin.

"old Lori,

We do have a principled leader. One need only look at the stand he has made with respect to Israel and Canada's absence in some of the anti-Semitic conferences cloaked under the title of a UN working group, etc.etc."

Posted by: favill at June 17, 2009 8:38 AM

Well said - favill!

Favill - there is no chance of me ever voting for a Liberal candidate or party to "punish" the CPC. I'll vote CPC almost no matter what, though in my riding it is a futile gesture, since Bob Rae is my MP.

I'm just disillusioned. Most of what I have seen coming out of the PM's office since the fall of last year has been disappointing. I remember the leaders' debate in the last election, as Mr. Harper stood his ground calmly while the other four attacked him constantly and shrilly. I admired him then. My kids watched, and admired him.

I have not seen that kind of strength from him since then. I think he has made some bad decision or taken some bad advice. Sure there are excuses. I've been hearing them constantly since then. But excuses aren't substitutes for real leadership.

I can see a problem with the self-employed being ably to collect EI. What is to stop a person from working for himself, paying the premiums for the required hours them shutting down "collect" until the EI runs out and then repeats the process the next year? Just a thought.

RobC,

You raise good points. They are controllable. But the essential issue is you now have two classes of workers, those who are hired as an employee and those who are hired as a contractor.

In both cases work can dry up and income cease. One is protected the other is not. But eing an independent contractor you get access to tax beefits others do not.

This is the balancing act that needs to be struck. Harper was right, it is more complicated than the "I" thinks. I am sure the "I"'s policy brain would quickly realize that as it was explained to him. I am sure Iggy is pre disposed to thinking that things are complicated and requiring study. The details may be but the priciple isnt.

However, Iggy is used to being the "smart guy". Smart guys often are subject to being glib. because after a bit of study they "figure it out"...well they figure out 80% of the problem, but not the last 20% of the detail to make it work.

I dont think Iggy wanted an election, and I think he has a major caucus issue from the Chretienites. If he cannot deliver his caucus then Harper gets to wipe his hands and say, it isnt me, I tried this guy isnt a reasonable negotiating partner, or the Liberal party cannot be trusted.

Trudeau pulled something like this when Mulroney entered the House. They put a resolution on the table regarding Quebec. It would mean MBM either couldnt descipline his pre Quebec sweep caucus or deliver a statement that the Liberals could live with.

MBM was able to whip his caucus into line and it set the stage for his sweep of Quebec. This doesnt have the same upside potential for Iggy, but it does have the downside risk if he cannot deliver.

Watching and waiting.

If this EI thing was so important to Igyy, then why didn't he bring it up a few months ago when the govt. was making the budget? Instead he waits until one week before summer holidays and then starts tryng to make changes to the budget that was already passed by him months ago. Do none of the liberal supporters see the stupidity of this? This leads me to believe he really doesn't care about EI but was going to use it to force a summer election because his polling numbers were up, but chickened out at the last minute when he saw people didn't want an election and it was going to hurt him. Great leadership there! How can anybody support the Liberals when they so obviously only care about themselves? Where are the new polls, I bet they have changed a little in the past week?

I think many Canadians, enough to deliver a majority to the right person, are looking for a principled leader who puts Canadians' interests above partisan politics.

There was a time when Ignatieff was being painted by the media as perhaps being that person. If he had managed to keep that image viable while navigating the rapids of parliamentary and partisan party politics, he would have been a formidable opponent.

However, his true colours and weakness as a leader have been revealed in the past couple of months, and it seems that the emperor has no clothes indeed. Good that we found out. Now the CPC has to rise to the occasion. Less pettiness, more substance.

Perhaps Harper reminded Iggy about the Chretien-Martin Liberals restricting claim access to EI so significantly that the contributions to the EI fund exceeded what was paid out by $54 billion. The Liberals then took this $54 billion surplus out of the EI fund to and used it to underwrite large holes in the budget left from large tax cuts to the largest LPC patronage corporations - banks, Insurance etc.

Perhaps Harper asked Iggy where that 54 billion went.

Then there is the part about the Supreme Court of Canada saying that Ottawa illegally collected employment insurance contributions for three years under the former Liberal government.

Perhaps Harper reminded Iggy of this and asked him if public knowledge of this may help the people decide who was best left in charge of the EI cookie jar.

Tapirs (, as in "taper", or , as "ta-pier") are large browsing mammals, roughly pig-like in shape, with short, prehensile snouts. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapir
Any one of several species of large odd-toed ungulates with a long prehensile upper lip
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tapir
Although they are mistaken for pigs, tapirs are related to horses and rhinos. Shy, solitary, feeding on plants, tapirs can weigh up to 300 ...
www.conservation.org/resources/glossary/Pages/t.aspx

What's that?
With a "B".
Oh sorry my mistake.

And how many self-employed do not even show income they make nor file a return? That number of self-employed can not be counted using your toes iggy!

Being self employed I have had to fill out the Record of Employment for my employees. Firstly, EI premiums are based on income, so if you claim very little income then you also pay very little in premiums. That also means than your Record of Employment must match with what you have previously submitted, and since EI payments are calculated on what you paid/earned, then if you've paid virtually nothing, you will collect virtually nothing. I can attest to many phone calls from the bureaucrats verifying down to the penny what my employee made. My questions arise as to how they will determine the income over say a 3 month period? For a lot of small businesses you receive your payments, subtract all your expenses and at the end of the year your accountant tells you what you earned that year. Our receivables are pretty consistent throughout the year, but what about farmers, or king crab fishermen or others that make a pile of money over a short period and then rest for the remainder of the year? Complicated to be sure.

The problem as I see it is the Old Liberals stole most of their good policy ideas. Some were Conservative ( by any name) and some were from the NDP. With a Conservative government they can only steal from the NDP and the Bloc. They float an idea, find out why the NDP is not electable and the Bloc has only one regions intrest at heart. Then they change their mind to ..whatever.

I think it was very obvious that Iggy had a meeting with the bankers on the weekend and they shot him down for a second time.

Iggy, Iggy, Iggy
Oink, oink, oink!!!

Ken,

If that was the case it would be another point for the Con proposed legislation to ban long term loans for politics.

It absolutely should only ever be financed with funds you have raised. If deb isnt outright banned, then it should short term only, ie repaid within 60 days of an election being finished.

Bankers shouldnt be allowed to decide, but then again the Liberal Party shouldnt be in that position in the first place.

Maybe they are discussing how Iggy can cross the floor

Call me crazy, but I believe Iggy's best move would be to cross the floor to the Conservative Party.

Individually, he seems to be out of step with the rest of the Party of Slime.

I give him full points for integrity. He did turn his back on the coalition, but finds himself being directed by the left-leaning wackjobs in the party.

After being out of the country for 34 years, Iggy likely did not realize the party of his youth had moved so far left and that the Conservative Party more reflects his values.

Call me nuts, but I think he would be a good fit in today's Conservative Party.

The Mothercorp. Gregg/Coyne/Hebert gabfest Monday night was very negative on Iggy, with a strong consensus that he is all hat and no cowboy.

At the end of the Iggy flaying Peter Mansbridge weakly asked whether there was anything about the day that looked good on him.

Chantal Hebert basically replied "not really".

Bart:

Add the Globe and Mail to the horrified lefty MSM, who are shocked by the apparently sensible approach by Iggy.

set you free: the fact that you say iggy would be a good fit in today's conservative party tells me we need a new conservative party, obviously one we have isn't right enough. The further right you go, the smaller the government gets with fewer publicly funded programs. That's what we need.

Rick from AB: Amen!

set you free - I'm more sceptical of Ignatieff's integrity.

You say he turned his back on the Coalition. No, he signed it. He rejected it only when it became very clear that Canadians were in the majority strongly opposed to it. That's called opportunism not integrity.

As for his basic beliefs, and that includes his previous support for the US and its anti-terrorist stance, yes, I say that 'back then', he was more to the 'right' than the 'left. However, was this also an aspect of opportunism even then?

I'd have to conclude that overshadowing and indeed guiding his beliefs is his opportunism.

old lori said
I long for the day, a couple of years ago, when I actually thought I had a principled leader.

Favill and Joe Molnar get your head out of your rear end and have a good look around.

Like old lori I am discouraged with Harper and the CPC. However they are the best of a rotten lot so what makes you think I or lori would vote lower.

EI. Like every thing else if brought in for self employed will soon become manditory.

Rick and ET:

A short history lesson, if I may.

When the Liberals elected Dion, he took the party on a hard-left course, where they were somewhat indistiguishable from Layton's more radical marxism.

That gave Harper and the Conservative Party and opportunity to seize the middle ground, which had traditionally be held by the Liberal Party.

Then, they elected Iggy, who is now trying to reclaim the ground Dion gave up.

Harper himself said something like: “We're going to position ourselves in Canada's middle, then slowly move the middle to the right."

The only way Iggy can win is to outflank Harper to the right. But, that would be at odds with the Dion-era MP's. So, Iggy is kinda stuck with a bunch of aging commies, who take the “state has a responsibility of compassion and to give a voice to the voiceless" thing seriously.

That was the former turf of prairie populist NDP.

To my way of thinking, Iggy has nowhere to manoeveur (sp?) because his instincts are for a Liberal Party that now only exists in the Conservative Party.

He's a man out of place and time.

That's why heads are exploding in the left-leaning MSM, who understand Iggy does not represent the majority interventionist viewpoint that today's Liberal Party stands for.

Questions?

The only place Iggy fits is in a university, where the majority of his peers are reality hicks too stupid to understand reality or comprehend the practicality of most anything. He is but another academic word whore in the trudeau mold and not nearly as slick as the street corner hustler down south.

"Perhaps Harper asked Iggy where that 54 billion went....Perhaps Harper reminded Iggy of this and asked him if public knowledge of this may help the people decide who was best left in charge of the EI cookie jar." Posted by: watcher in the rye

I agree fully. If the 54 billion were in the EI acount Canadians would have easly surrived this global economic storm. [I put the total blame on the LIEberals.]

I think Harper should remind Canadians how the LIEberals stole from contributers. Biffy was given a gift by Harper and should be very thankful that he was given a seond chance - unlike what Biffy did to DeYawn.

Either way, the LIEberals should look at the leadership of Biffy, he flip-flops worse than DeYawn - but what do you expect from somebody thinks the Puffin should be the LIEberal Party mascot.

West:

Finished with the personal attacks?

I'm sure you have the mental capacity to rise above that level. Once you look at the issues, you too will realize that Iggy is a much better fit in the Conservative Party.

Explain to me why the CBC and Globe's heads are exploding now? It's because they've realized he's much more sensible than the rest of his party.

This argument among Mr. Harper and Mr. Iggnit can be good or bad side of lets be optometric it bring good, While Canada less likely in future can find majority government since Canada are so diverse and number of people and background cause all need to live and not one gain more than other blame to where you come from Ontario-Montreal or Calgary- Vancouver. Canada needs to concentrate for Canadian life style and economic relief first and put all foreign policy as second priority
====

There are so many options available for government to help
Poor, unemployed, low income, university students, mid class worker or family and CEO and small business and big cooperation, all must categorized and mix and match area together such as put rich and mid class with reason not by hate or advantage one over others while understand grow of each not need to always all people work or seat with each other
Or put student and small business in one area and put poor and unemployed in one area. Please do not put subsidized housing near rich area in North York to cause more crime in area since both kids go to school one is extreme rich an done is extreme poor in one school like AY Jackson can not match together one like to buy so much food afford by their parents in break and not afford bread on table. I am not favor of racism or put down poor I am favor of be realistic and grow and take care of each group separately not favor to each other with not reason. Please give so many people live in Canada with family first one place to live and no tax on first house to buy.
What people minimum need is? 1) Food on table consider number of people in household and understand minimum food cost, for family of 2 verses 5 for enough nutrition to eat
2) second we have lots of high-rise condominium in different value built almost empty and useless can be used them for government buy them for better need for Canadian to live there such as: shelter subsidized housing or name it place for university residence place for military and police and armies can live with security around each separate from each other
even include people who loose their job and no afford existing rent or house need place to live separate from others people said above and elderly place to live for seniors and children abuse leave their house need shelter or etc...
business people employee labor who work for government office need to live in condominium close to for example down town then government can built or buy already built one for purpose of use Canada land reduce stress
Saving for every body in healthy ways
Be realistic for example welfare is not released or insurance benefit is not give realistic value money when they loose their job or not able to find job
In order reduce anxiety, most employees able to work concentrate if they have minimum to live
While each above house can be separate level, Like regular worker even CEO can live in certain high right close to their job and not pay rent and tax, Cut tax from home property, please let rather collect more tax government use and act like government business act to made or create job and get feed back to government rather government pay tax to itself used those hidden tax profit to made Candia life style better. For minimum compare with each level and let each know difference and respect and need as garbage truck driver need to respect as his job done as CEO in different level as big company’s brain.
In Iranian national gas company offered free house for regular worker or engineer or CEO free while they are working to seat and work and they are fix their houses renovation free to made people concentrate of the main job only seat and work or only seat and study if you are student or if you are police or military need free house with good condition to allow them to work better for security not able to worry of pay rent or home or food
nothing above is free this is bring better return back to government reduce crime reduce corruption and better life style and less argument among married couple that majority of argument is money cause divorce
Or think it so many things will come out of this, If you gain all and not do your job you go one level back word house and if you good worker you go in big ladder up not stock in subsidized housing list for every for 6 years is corrupted system can bring. People who loose their job need to get help well since they have potential to find job sooner
3) Government can do so much for better living: spiritually healthy and emotionally and family and science and knowledge or fun
Like you must see or check body of how you eat and take care to calculate your body with real age group I saw Opera other day she said she has
Growth cause her gain weight and brought lady who was 44 but she was age body is 65 years and after 1 years therapy of healthy body and take care and reduce anxiety she now have 45 with body healthy of 41.7 . In order to rich that level need specific health and spiritual attached to it which is lack in Canada life style too In USA is worst. Doctors in Canada need to act made sense and let patient have copy of their report and some can talk direct to doctor some can not need organization to help like assistant patent to allow doctor know exactly what is wrong with patients to help patient case based collect fact since doctor can made mistake and patient may not report proper symptoms to doctors as well and some doctor are hid information from one doctors or test to scared loose patient must allow patient to find good family doctor take care of them Now if you made health as example we have similar over issue in here; And you can worth more to take care of your life style since you can worth living better .What cause people like Opera rich today in USA is talking main topic of day and who knows their directions right or wrong but show some research made them still so many people listen to themCanada problems is different than US problems or Iran problems or people must face this is not London or Tehran this is Canada face problems here to solve it before talk else where first help yourself then donot forgot to help other after.

Clown Party: "If the 54 billion were in the EI acount Canadians would have easly surrived this global economic storm. [I put the total blame on the LIEberals.]"

Two points: the money in the EI account was used by the Liberals to balance the federal budget. I'm not saying I agreed with this trick, but the money couldn't have simply been left in the EI account *and* the deficit eliminated -- unless of course very serious further cuts had been made in the '90s.

Second -- and you don't have to be a Liberal to realize this -- if the Harper government hadn't continued the Martin govt's practice of letting federal spending get out of control instead of limiting it to the rate of inflation and population growth, then the country would have been in *much* better position to face the recession. Some will say that Harper had no choice, that he had to spend to stay in power (I don't agree, by the way). But budgets are about choices, and we judge the principles of governments by the choices they make.

I applaud the Harper govt. for many things they've done, but c/Conservatives have a lot of reasons to be disappointed.

MJ:

There's a practical component that's necessitated by the fact Canada currently has a minority parliament.

"One of those "yeses" involved changes to employment insurance that would allow self-employed Canadians to pay into the program."

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 a one-way Street

old Lori,

I believe that PM Harper realizes that amongst the federal parties and federal leaders...he and the Conservatives are probably the best leader and party to deal with the current economic problems to ensure Canada comes out of it without going heavily into debt like our US cousin and as the Liberals and NDP are hoping to do if they seize control of Parliament. He is fighting a delaying action until better economic times come around..to do this he must trade "ground" for time. In this case, "ground" is defined as policies which conservatives would like to see passed and taking part in activities which conservatives instinctively abhor, such as spending more money than you earn or going into debt. Having said this, the idea of any rear guard action is to gird your strength for the counter-attack to destroy the enemy on ground of your choosing at the time of your choice.

By all objective international measures, Canada is alone in the G20 in that although we are feeling economic stress, it does not nearly equate to some of the more extensive problems that western Europe or even the US will experience in the near and long term. We will "turn the corner" much sooner than the rest of the world by at least 12 months (in the most conservative estimate). When that happens, PM Harper will probably "stop playing nice" and force the issue. That is when we, the common conservative foot-soldier must mobilize and take part in our duty to vote and to ensure that the Conservative's message is not lost in the "white noise" of the CBC. It will be through venues such as "small dead animals", "five feet of fury", etc that we, the conservative element of Canada's population must make our message heard and push our vision of what Canada should be. Don't count on the MSM to push it...WE MUST BE THE ARBITER OF CHANGE.

~~favill~~

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.