Who's afraid of an election?

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture
Who's afraid of an election?

continued from here

Changed the thread title, as any of the parties may well be.

Unionist

Could some mod change "Whose" to "Who's" please?

Stockholm

I have a question. Let's say that the NDP decides to keep parliament alive for a few more weeks so that the Tory changes to EI can be passed and that takes us past the date of the Liberal confidence vote - what then? Is that the last opportunity for the opposition to bring down the government before Xmas? or scould there be more opposition days and non-confidence motions after that

remind remind's picture

Ooops, good eye unionist, thanks mods for when you see it.

ghoris

Stockholm wrote:

I have a question. Let's say that the NDP decides to keep parliament alive for a few more weeks so that the Tory changes to EI can be passed

This is no longer a theoretical possibility, it would seem: NDP to prop up Tories to pass EI changes.

Quote:

The NDP says it plans to prop up the Conservatives in order to pass a Tory plan to extend employment insurance for long-tenured workers - a move that appears to rule out a fall election.

...

Mulcair said his party will support the Tories until they pass the legislation, unveiled Monday. That means a Liberal no-confidence motion expected the first week of October is likely to fail.

Sean in Ottawa

We all should be afraid of an election -- another term from Harper would damage the country; a majority would be unspeakable; Canadians turnign away form their democratic first choices to avoid another minority just because Harper can't understand the requirement to cooperate-- yeah much to worry about and that is before we get to an individual party's political success or risks and they all have serious risks.

Chester Drawers

I believe there are three opposition days from now until Christmas.  Each opp party has one.  Harper never lets others determine his destiny therefore I believe that there will be a poison pill bill brought forth.  Steve Fletcher has been working on the vote subsidy.  Cons will introduce this bill as a confidence bill, the opps will have to either vote infavor of abolishing this subsidy or fight an election over the $1.95 (soon to be $2.05) and be seen in the public as only interested in their selfserving party funding.

The Cons will want to fight an election on their terms not what the opps want.  This Fridays vote will be the only chance for the opps to control the election agenda and it appears they blinked.

The Cons election machine is in full gear, signs are going up next week of incumbant candidates, picture posters and lots of local advertizing.  The election is on.

remind remind's picture

Oh let's hope so chester drawers, then Harper will take the blame for forcing an electiion, as "look" he was already prepared.

And for Harper to revist the funding again is just down right foolish.

Ward

When is the next "fixed" election date?

Polunatic2

How can there be a fixed election date with a minority parliament? 

KenS

It certainly would be sweet if the NDP could play brinksmanship of extracting concessions when their opposition day comes up.

But I suspect Harper will push those dates to the end of the legislative calender so that no one wants to trigger an election that would run to Christmas.

NorthReport

Polunatic2 wrote:

How can there be a fixed election date with a minority parliament? 

Unless that fixed date legislation did not pass, it should be 4 years from the date of the last election which was October 10, 2008, wasn't it. That is unless the opposition defeats the government or Harper does what he has done previously when he called an early election, didn't he.

janfromthebruce

pass the legislation, unveiled Monday. What legislation revealed on Monday - nobody publicly saw it?

That said, Chesterdrawer, Harper would be stupid to provoke an election that supposedly nobody wants, would get in the way of his stimulous spending, and la, la, la.

If he did, his game is up - remember those who trigger a faux election will pay - and with Jaffer just busted with drunk driving and cocaine, their Mr. Clean [and we're not hypercrits] image would take a beating.

But sure this is the only chance, and the NDP should sacrifice workers' money for the liberal cause. That said, the latest poll really sucks for the libs so perhaps they might reconsider their bomblast.

Ward

Next election 2012. I can handle the Bloc and the Ndp being the opposition 'til then, educating the public etc. ( I doubt any truly vile legislation will be put forward by the conservatives in the next four years. Why would they screw up their cushy jobs?)

remind remind's picture

Jan:

It was discussed by Layton in the media, where he said the critics would go over it looking to see if was worth supporting.

Mr.Canada_ts

I don't think that Layton is propping up the Tories as much as Layton is getting what he wants, more or less.  Considering there has been almost zero EI reform in the last 10-15 years Layton would be foolhardy to vote against this olive branch as it may not come back again.  If that happened he would be done as party leader.   Passing up aa chance to get 20 extra weeks entitlement for long term workers would not go unnoticed. 

He knows he could explain away voting with the governemnt for a while as the focus will likely really be on Ignatieff and his sheer ignorance in the next eelection.  Ignatieff is going to ruin himself all by himself why should Jack take the spotlight away from him.   Harper, Duceppe and Layton all see what's written on the wall and want to get as much distance between themselves and Ignatieff as possible right now.  He's radioactive and none of those three wish to clean up the mess when he fully melts down.

 

Just my thoughts of coarse...anything's possible I guess :)

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

Speaking of election fear, has anyone seen the HarpoCon ad that shows a picture of Rae saying "failed NDP leader" and a picture of Layton "untested NDP leader"?

janfromthebruce

no but I don't really watch tv

MUN Prof. MUN Prof.'s picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

no but I don't really watch tv

Nor me. You'd think they'd put it on the web so I can entertain myself with it.

Frmrsldr

Stockholm wrote:

I have a question. Let's say that the NDP decides to keep parliament alive for a few more weeks so that the Tory changes to EI can be passed and that takes us past the date of the Liberal confidence vote - what then? Is that the last opportunity for the opposition to bring down the government before Xmas? or scould there be more opposition days and non-confidence motions after that

When it comes to EI changes WHAT IF the NDP does all the work, but in the eyes of most Canadians the governing Conservatives get the credit?

Centrist

MUN Prof. wrote:

Speaking of election fear, has anyone seen the HarpoCon ad that shows a picture of Rae saying "failed NDP leader" and a picture of Layton "untested NDP leader"?

Yeah. The Cons are not only going after Iggy but are also now targeting Bob Rae, Jack, and Duceppe in the same commercial.

Commercial break after commercial break. No Lib ads to be seen as the media reported a few weeks ago. Where do the Cons get the cash-flow for this kind of stuff?

Jack is propping up the Cons in terms of the EI legislation, etc., yet the Cons are attacking him again and again in everyone's living room?

Unreal.

melovesproles

Quote:
Jack is propping up the Cons in terms of the EI legislation, etc., yet the Cons are attacking him again and again in everyone's living room?

Unreal.

Which is why the 'Cowardly Jack' meme the media is running with is catching on.  I've never had anything against the NDP trying to wring concessions from the Cons, especially as the Liberals won't be much better to deal with but Harper has shown time and time again he knows how to outmaneuver Layton.  That's because unlike the NDP, the Conservatives know how to play to their base.  The NDP aren't going to gain anything which justifies the continuation of the Harper government. 

Fearing a possible Harper majority is a bullshit excuse.  The only reason why that is even a possibility is because outside of Quebec the opposition is  incompetent and lets Harper continually dictate the terms of the debate.

Stockholm

what do you think are the "terms of the debate"? If you were leading an opposition party in Canada, how would you make the case that if people made you PM, the recession would instantly end and there would be a chicken in every pot?

Aristotleded24

Mr.Canada_ts wrote:

I don't think that Layton is propping up the Tories as much as Layton is getting what he wants, more or less.  Considering there has been almost zero EI reform in the last 10-15 years Layton would be foolhardy to vote against this olive branch as it may not come back again.  If that happened he would be done as party leader.   Passing up aa chance to get 20 extra weeks entitlement for long term workers would not go unnoticed. 

[url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5ixC57QjS4y2... autoworkers did notice the change to this entitlement:[/url]

wrote:
The head of the Canadian Auto Workers Union calls the federal government's new EI plan "discriminatory" and crumbs for the jobless.

CAW president Ken Lewenza says what Canadians really need from proposed changes to EI to be released today is a "full loaf of bread."

He says the plan to extends benefits for workers who have been employed for seven of the past 10 years will not help the vast majority of the country's 1.6 million unemployed.

On matters of public policy, I would certainly trust the CAW over the NDP. Certainly there would be communication between the 2 and I am at a loss for why the NDP would accept something the CAW finds inadequate. The only positive that could come from this is if the NDP says something along the lines of "this is a first step, we need to take this farther."

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:

what do you think are the "terms of the debate"? If you were leading an opposition party in Canada, how would you make the case that if people made you PM, the recession would instantly end and there would be a chicken in every pot?

First, I would break the frame that sees "recessions" as part of a natural cycle like the seasons over which people have little control. Economics is about the decisions of resource allocation. The first thing I would do is to shore up all income support programs, including EI, CPP, and OAS. People would notice that right away. The next thing I would do would be to implement job creation strategies, like building infrastructure which would improve the quality of life, and increase funding to Human Resources Development so that there are more resources for those seeking work.

Mr.Canada_ts

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Mr.Canada_ts wrote:

I don't think that Layton is propping up the Tories as much as Layton is getting what he wants, more or less.  Considering there has been almost zero EI reform in the last 10-15 years Layton would be foolhardy to vote against this olive branch as it may not come back again.  If that happened he would be done as party leader.   Passing up aa chance to get 20 extra weeks entitlement for long term workers would not go unnoticed. 

[url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5ixC57QjS4y2... autoworkers did notice the change to this entitlement:[/url]

wrote:
The head of the Canadian Auto Workers Union calls the federal government's new EI plan "discriminatory" and crumbs for the jobless.

CAW president Ken Lewenza says what Canadians really need from proposed changes to EI to be released today is a "full loaf of bread."

He says the plan to extends benefits for workers who have been employed for seven of the past 10 years will not help the vast majority of the country's 1.6 million unemployed.

On matters of public policy, I would certainly trust the CAW over the NDP. Certainly there would be communication between the 2 and I am at a loss for why the NDP would accept something the CAW finds inadequate. The only positive that could come from this is if the NDP says something along the lines of "this is a first step, we need to take this farther."

At the same time these people are hyper partisan and no amount is great enough for them.  As long as it's coming from a Tory, it's no good.  This isn't working together at all which is what Canadians want, government to work.  The NDP, Liberals and BQ wants people to work 360 hours( about 45 working days) then collect EI benefits for an entire year.  Anything less then that is deemed unacceptable.

I think Jack and Ignatieff would have a hard time convincing Canadians that they'd raise everyone elses taxes to pay for people to take a paid year off after working for a little over 2 months.  It just wouldn't reasonate well.

In my pov this is a good comprimise and the way everyone else is polling are wise to take it.  The only party and leader who's numbers are going up are Harpers, this is not the time for Layton and Ignatieff to start playing games. 

The time will come, we need to be patient and  wait as now is not the time imo.

Unionist

Mr.Canada_ts wrote:

 

I think Jack and Ignatieff would have a hard time convincing Canadians that they'd raise everyone elses taxes to pay for people to take a paid year off after working for a little over 2 months.  It just wouldn't reasonate well.

 

Sounds like reasonate your capacity for logic. Besides your heartless attitude toward the unemployed, go read a book or something and figure out that EI isn't paid out of your precious taxes, whoever you are.

 

Aristotleded24

Mr.Canada_ts wrote:

I think Jack and Ignatieff would have a hard time convincing Canadians that they'd raise everyone elses taxes to pay for people to take a paid year off after working for a little over 2 months.  It just wouldn't reasonate well.

Harper's already contemplating raising EI premiums to pay the deficit.

ReeferMadness

Excuse my cynicism but it seems pretty clear to me that the machinations of what party supports what other party are based completely on internal calculations of what will happen if there is an election.  If Jack is going to prop up the Cons, the simplest answer is that he thinks he might lose seats to Liberals.  The Bloc's motivations are a bit more complex because they different goals.  I'm sure they'd sacrifice a few seats in the short term to come up with a better shot at independence.

Now, if it were Elizabeth May propping up the Cons, some of you would be trumpeting this as absolute proof that the Greens are nothing more than Conservatives in drag.  

The bottom line is that all of this crap is the result of a dysfunctional electoral system.

George Victor

Reefer:

"The bottom line is that all of this crap is the result of a dysfunctional electoral system."

 

A FPTP system is dysfunctional, but so are the expectations of so many that you just go out and announce to the world (somehow, through a corrupted media) that your position is morally superior.

 

One is given a little more licence to make such declarations in a system of proportional representation - that acts to elect people on the basis of their appeal to specific sectoral concerns. THEN the haggling takes place between parties.

 

Some people here are being accused of heartless behaviour, when they are only stating, not what they feel about a subject, but about how something is going to be interpreted by the Great Confused (who get their take on the subject by that corrupted media passing on the propaganda.

 

All is not "crap", Reefer. Just don't let the bastards play you like a musical instrument.

ReeferMadness

George:

It isn't clear whether you're replying to my post or using my post as a launching point to reply to a whole bunch of people.  So, to clear up confusion, I'd like to emphasize a few points:

  1. I did not say my position is "morally superior"
  2. Obviously, PR would be a great improvement; but it isn't all that's needed.  The parties in Canada have succeeded in turning the system as originally designed on its head.  Originally, the PM was supposed to be a servant of parliament.  Now the MP's are servants of the party leaders (and their unelected hangers on).   Something needs to change.  Maybe we drain the power from the party and give it back to the MP's.  Maybe we directly elect a head of state.  BTW, the haggling is taking place between parties today.
  3. I've accused nobody of "heartless behaviour".
  4. I never said all is crap.  When I said "all this crap", I was referring to the public hand-wringing, moralizing and other positioning on the part of all the party leaders over why we should or should not have an election.  It's a direct result of a leveraged voting system where the difference of a few percentage points in popular support can turn into 20% more (or less) seats.  
  5. That bastards don't need to play me.  Those of us who wish to challenge the status quo are sufficiently low in number that we can successfully be ignored.

A good system doesn't guarantee good results but it produces a tendency towards good results. 

Unionist

ReeferMadness wrote:

George:

It isn't clear whether you're replying to my post or using my post as a launching point to reply to a whole bunch of people.

Hey RM, George's "heartless behaviour" was in response to my post, not yours. Don't sweat it. Do what I do. Push that special button.

 

George Victor

And, to completely clear up any confusion, Reefer, the "bastards" are the Cons who buy their tacticians in the U.S. and "play" the electorate, the Great Unread, one against the other.

You see evidence even here, among the Great Read, that it works, and the moral ranking confusion continues, irrelevant as it is in this blessed system we seem to be stuck with for the time being.   

Canapathy Canapathy's picture

Why is the NDP afraid of an election? 

I don't think anyone really belives it is because they want to the give the, less than adequate, Conservative EI proposal time to pass.  Nor is it the home reno credit, considering that prior to the summer Jack Layton was ready to vote against every bill/vote/update the Cons put forward without even reading them over.

Now, if the Con vote only includes the proposed EI changes and the home teno credit, then the opposition, including Iggy, would be crazy not to support it.  Opposing the government without first reading the bill just looks foolish to the public.

I somewhat agree with this Star article that suggests that Jack damaged his own credibility by opposing everthing regardless of content for 3 sessions and now supporting the Cons to buy time.  Maybe the party should have elected a new leader.

Current polls show the NDP would loose some seats if an election took place today.  I also hear the party is low on funds.  So I'm wondering if Jack, just like Dion, will be supporting the Cons until his fortunes improve.

So what does the party have to do to get back on its feet?  In my opinion they have to agressively seek donations and craft a vision with a handful of clear, well thought out plans.  I'd really like to see proportional rep, renewable energy, smart grid and tax reform listed in that plan...but that is probably best left to another thread.

janfromthebruce

Premier NDP Dextor weighs in and gives a thumbs up for Layton

"Premier Darrell Dexter is happy the federal NDP has agreed to support the federal Tories’ plan to enrich Employment Insurance rather than sending the country to the polls next month, his chief of staff said on Wednesday.

"His own experience has been that it’s — for any political party — far better to focus on how to make the parliament work, and to look at where they can find common ground, what they can agree on," said Dan O’Connor.

"He certainly took the view in the two minorities here — ’03 and ’06 — from election night on, that was the approach we would take. We would pursue the things that were important to the NDP, but we would do it in the context of recognizing someone else was the government."

The province is glad EI is going to be enriched, Mr. O’Connor said."

SNIP

"This is certainly a step in the right direction.""

SNIP AND LABOUR CHIMES IN

"Rick Clarke, president of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, is upset the federal government isn’t doing more for the unemployed, but he is not sympathetic to Liberal criticism, since they set up the current EI system.

"I don’t have a real, real short memory, and when I think about something like that coming out of the Liberals, I remember (former Liberal minister) Doug Young," he said."

SNIP

Mr. Clarke says the Tories’ proposed changes are a "Band-Aid," that penalizes workers who were laid off in previous years, but he assumes Mr. Layton and the NDP have done their best for the unemployed.

SNIP

I’m still more angry at Harper for using this as an extortion issue because he’s playing with people’s lives."

janfromthebruce

Ht FROM DAWG

Michael Ignatieff has just announced that the Liberals will not stand in the way of the Conservatives' EI reform bill, introduced in the House of Commons yesterday. He must have seen this.

Given that even speedy passage will take us into October, might the government Ways and Means motion tomorrow pass unopposed?

KenS

Canapathy wrote:

Why is the NDP afraid of an election? 

I don't think anyone really belives it is because they want to the give the, less than adequate, Conservative EI proposal time to pass.  Nor is it the home reno credit, considering that prior to the summer Jack Layton was ready to vote against every bill/vote/update the Cons put forward without even reading them over.

Now, if the Con vote only includes the proposed EI changes and the home teno credit, then the opposition, including Iggy, would be crazy not to support it.  Opposing the government without first reading the bill just looks foolish to the public.

I somewhat agree with this Star article that suggests that Jack damaged his own credibility by opposing everthing regardless of content for 3 sessions and now supporting the Cons to buy time.  Maybe the party should have elected a new leader.

Current polls show the NDP would loose some seats if an election took place today.  I also hear the party is low on funds.  So I'm wondering if Jack, just like Dion, will be supporting the Cons until his fortunes improve.

So what does the party have to do to get back on its feet?  In my opinion they have to agressively seek donations and craft a vision with a handful of clear, well thought out plans.  I'd really like to see proportional rep, renewable energy, smart grid and tax reform listed in that plan...but that is probably best left to another thread.

Starting at the bottom, and least important. It makes for good copy, and a stick for Liberals to wave, but the NDP does not have a fundraising issue or problem. I've covered this extensively and don't want to repeat myself- but even with a slow start for this year [for predictable and predicted reasons] the NDP is in at least as good shape as the Liberals... which is that the Liberals [only recently] do not have financial reasons to be gun shy of an election. I've been saying for some time, that even with only an average fundraising year for the NDP, and a banner year for the LPC, the NDP will produce more of a surplus over expenses [which is the main driver of finances available for an election]. And being a regular watcher of all the party's finances and based on recent observations, I'll bet the NDP fundraises at least as well as the Liberals in the second half of the year. But even without that, like I said, the NDP will have more of a surplus available for an election. 

The vast majority of Canadians- of even those who care about politics, including NDP supporters- don't care whether or not the NDP was afraid of an election.

The punditry cares- its their stock and trade. But in that area, Jack has no credibility to lose with them. And they'll very soon tire of making jabs. Ignatieff is [was] very exposed to those kind of hits having impact. Layton was never and would never be in danger for being seen as Dion-like for 2 reasons.

One, is that however much people may beleive that the real reason is wanting to avoid an election, Layton will always have something to show. Much like the Bloc does when it cuts a deal [except for the short period of time 3 years ago when they were with reason afraid of their shadow and would vote for absolutely anything]. Dion looked just plain hapless, and Iggy knew that was happening to him. Unlike with Iggy, for the NDP there is a viable 'middle ground'... and when and if there isn't one, if Jack and the NDP are in danger of becoming like Dion and the Liberals then, at that point they'll pull the plug even if they'd still rather not be in an election.

So I don't think the party needs to 'get back on its feet'. But repositioning is definitely required.

Having earlier invested in some bigger issues / themes that take longer to develop- that would have come in handy now. Not to mention that its a good and practical thing to do anyway.

Never too late to start, even if it isn't going to float your boat in the immeidate future.

remind remind's picture

Excellent observation of Harper using EI as an extortion gambit and playing with people's lives.

Mr.Canada_ts

Unionist wrote:

Mr.Canada_ts wrote:

 

I think Jack and Ignatieff would have a hard time convincing Canadians that they'd raise everyone elses taxes to pay for people to take a paid year off after working for a little over 2 months.  It just wouldn't reasonate well.

 

Sounds like reasonate your capacity for logic. Besides your heartless attitude toward the unemployed, go read a book or something and figure out that EI isn't paid out of your precious taxes, whoever you are.

 

If they brought this through then Ei load would double therefore requiring more staff and more offices which equals more overhead which does come from every Canadians tax dollars.  This in turn makes for bigger government, not less.  Many Canadians think that government is big enough and doesn't want any more government control into their lives. 

It's important to take all Canadians views into account and not just our own.  We must think about what is good for everyone as equals and not just try to label a group as special therefore requiring more benefit then another group.

Me not supporting some working for 45 working days in order to collect EI for a year doesn't make me heartless.  It makes me responsible and I would wish everyone would take responsibility for themselves. 

I think it's set at 20 weeks atm or somewhere there abouts which is 5 months worked.  That is low enough in my books.  If we start paying a years benefits after 2 months worked it will quickly bankrupt the EI funds and EI premiums would likely triple or quadruple.  I don't wish to pay quadruple EI premiums so that someone can sit around for a year after only working for 2 months. 

Would everyone who collects after 2 months worked be like this?  Of coarse not the majority that collect EI are really trying to look for a new job, enlisting in job training programs, etc.  At the same time there is a group of people collecting EI who are habitual collecters who will work the minimum then collect for a year and do nothing over that time.  Then work again for the minimum...etc.  I personally know of people who do this.  A 2 month work year may lead to more people taking advantage of the system in this manner.  This doesn't make Canada a stronger country.

I support many many things that Jack Layton says and does but I wouldn't want this to happen as we still need to be responsible and fair to everyone across this land.  We cannot afford to give everything to the poorest and let everyone else pay for it.  This isn't responsible.

That being said if Jack brought forward a proposal getting rid of the ridiculous 5 week waiting period before getting benefits every Canadian would support that, no doubt about it.  A lot of people need help(people who have tried to help themselves first) so lets get the help out to them as quickly as possible.  That would be an easy sell for Canadians.

As I said I support many things about Layton but he would have a very hard time selling a 2 month work year to normal everyday suburban middle class Canadians such as myself.  I'm sorry if that offends you but that's reality. 

Absolutely we need to help the less fortunate but he 2 month work year just sets the EI fund up for abuse.  Why take that chance?

Unionist

Quote:
We cannot afford to give everything to the poorest and let everyone else pay for it.  This isn't responsible.

Sorry I accused you of being heartless.

Oh, and GV, as one who calls ordinary Canadians as the "Great Unread" in 2 out of every 3 posts, you might want to review your own reading comprehension skills. Start with the post before this one.

 

remind remind's picture

Quote:
We cannot afford to give everything to the poorest and let everyone else pay for it.  This isn't responsible.

Interesting that responsible sentiment, given you are living on stolen land, and off the resources that belong to the poorest in Canada, First Nations peoples. And it is they who are paying for everyone else's existence here, including yours.

 

George Victor

You're suggesting I make it 1 out of 3 ? And you'll note the Great Read added for folks here, sometimes exposed to all perspectives and animus from some quarters all the time - you can set your watch by it.  But how many "normal, everyday, suburban middle class Canadians" would disagree with that sentiment? 

Seems to me if one went out stumping on the basis of full employment - you'll recall the old mark of two or three percent, I'm sure, and work laid on by Ottawa building things if unemployment went higher than that - one would be laughed off the stump. We agitate for increased help  to the long-term unemployed and those on social assistance, but you missed the vengeful period in '95 in old Ontariario when Harris campaigned on less for those folks and a great many in this greedy, vengeful, corrupt society we inhabit shouted encore.

But then, when a survey finds that two our of three Canadians would have trouble making ends meet if they missed a paycheque, three out of four single parents, maybe there's a lot of fear at work out there as well. 

Jeez I wish you would give others some credit for having just a tad as much moral outrage as yourself, u. Some of the time, at least.  It's getting so I just have to respond in defence.

Stockholm

In answer to the question in the OP, I am afraid of an election unless there are WINNING CONDITIONS for an election. I want an election if I think there is a really good chance that the NDP and Liberals gain enough seats that we can have some sort of a quasi-progressive government.

My fear is that right now, neither the Liberals nor the NDP have enough money (compared to what they will have in six months) and as much as its good for the NDP when the Liberals fall flat on their face, there is a great risk that Ignatieff is not ready for primetime and that we could end up with a seat configuration similar to what we have now - or worse. Which would give Harper yet another lease on life.

I could be wrong, maybe once a campaign got going Tory numbers would tank down to the low 30s and this four year nightmare might end  - but I think that there is a better chance of that if the Tories are brought down on their budget in February.

madmax

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Harper's already contemplating raising EI premiums to pay the deficit.

Yup he needs more money to steal.  Wish the Liberals never showed the CPC how to steal from EI.

Unionist

George Victor wrote:

Jeez I wish you would give others some credit for having just a tad as much moral outrage as yourself, u. Some of the time, at least.  It's getting so I just have to respond in defence.

George, I used to read your posts with interest, but I stopped when you started referring to people as the Great Unread.

Now I don't know why I'm bothering, but you defended Mr.Canada_ts against my charge that he was "heartless".

In order to prove my point, he said (among many other offensive things):

Quote:
We cannot afford to give everything to the poorest and let everyone else pay for it.  This isn't responsible.

And how about this:

Quote:
Me not supporting some working for 45 working days in order to collect EI for a year doesn't make me heartless.  It makes me responsible and I would wish everyone would take responsibility for themselves.

And what about this:

Quote:
At the same time there is a group of people collecting EI who are habitual collecters who will work the minimum then collect for a year and do nothing over that time.  Then work again for the minimum...etc.  I personally know of people who do this.

You say I shouldn't feel morally superior to this Mike Harris sound-alike?

Ok, George, thanks for listening, I'm going back to ignore.

 

George Victor

"But then, when a survey finds that two our of three working Canadians would have trouble making ends meet if they missed a paycheque, three out of four single parents, maybe there's a lot of fear at work out there as well. "

 

Get a grip, u. You move easily from bullying to condescension.

 

You don't bother to respond to my post, because you can't possibly refute it. Yours is a society from the past, a situation in history when people had not been co-opted by their very needs, when industrial unions had swat, and industry did not move to Timbuktu to meet the demands for profit of the very pension funds the workers subscribe to.

 

It was very nice of you to condescend to communicate for a bit, but clearly, if you are not going to read anything that challenges you to come out of your time warp, you might just as well cocoon.

 

You object to the term Great Unread? Hell, you won't even take up Robert Reich's Supercapitalism, which explains the economics at work out there, thanks to the Chicago Boys, described by Naomi Klein for their nasty work abroad. And people out there do not read them, u, and so they remain ignorant of the reasons for their own oppression.

flight from kamakura

i'm with stockholm.

you read these newspaper jackasses assuming that jack's trying to avoid an election because the polls aren't looking good for the ndp. sure, that could be some of it, but the polls aren't all that for the ndp. the real issue is that jack doesn't want a cpc majoirty. that would be a very bad result for the ndp, it would mean irrelevance. with how things are, he just can't risk ending his leadership with four years of a completely irrelevant ndp followed by a smashing liberal victory, riding a consolidation of the left.

Stockholm

My point is that the Liberals have plenty of reasons to fear an election right now as well. i think that they are getting carried away and are putting on a charade because they want to play games with the NDP in terms of who gets to point fingers at who for having "propped up" Harper - but in reality if the Liberals actually want an election right now as opposed to waiting a few more months than they are even stupider than i thought!

Erik Redburn

George Victor wrote:

 

Get a grip, u. You move easily from bullying to condescension.

You don't bother to respond to my post, because you can't possibly refute it.

 

Ha!  I'd say pots and kettles but that would be an insult to kettles everywhere.

Erik Redburn

Stockholm wrote:

In answer to the question in the OP, I am afraid of an election unless there are WINNING CONDITIONS for an election. I want an election if I think there is a really good chance that the NDP and Liberals gain enough seats that we can have some sort of a quasi-progressive government.

My fear is that right now, neither the Liberals nor the NDP have enough money (compared to what they will have in six months) and as much as its good for the NDP when the Liberals fall flat on their face, there is a great risk that Ignatieff is not ready for primetime and that we could end up with a seat configuration similar to what we have now - or worse. Which would give Harper yet another lease on life.

I could be wrong, maybe once a campaign got going Tory numbers would tank down to the low 30s and this four year nightmare might end  - but I think that there is a better chance of that if the Tories are brought down on their budget in February.

 

Well at least some frankness is showing through again.  One thing I traditionally liked about the NDP is that you just aren't as good at spin as the others.  Long run it works better too, Machiavelli in the end was a failure even buy his own ammoral standards.  You've been warned guys, all us outsiders can do.

George Victor

Edited ..............

Pages

Topic locked