babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I think you are reading out from strategic hopes.
As if whatever goals they want to priorize, they can just press an effective attack button.
Attacks need purchace- sort of a minimum fertile ground- to work. Attacks that dont have that can backfire even [though just a relatively high potential for not working is a disencentice in its own right].
For starters, Mulcair gets a long honeymoon coming out of the gate. And I think his presentation added to that. Even though the current tar sands and 'East/West divide' stuff is not really landing on him as blows- yet at least- from the Consservatives perspective and needs, it is at least some tarnish. The starting and accumulation of that was inevitable. And when there is enough, we'll start seeing some real attacks.
Comments from the PM and others are not real attacks. People around here make the mistake of hearing them and saying "see, it isnt working." Comments are always made in the course of events, there is no real 'investment' in them, as there is with attack ads.
These attack ads on the Shadow Cabinet- which are really more a collective aggregation of attacking the NDP's overall image rather than attacks on the individuasl- are in the category of low investment and relatively low expectations. Nothing spectacular is expected- just doing their job.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2012/05/24/pol-employm...
That should read in an effort to further reduce the percentage of workers eligible to collect EI.
http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/02/19/EICrisis/
Anyone notice that the definition the Cons are using has younger employees defined as occasional users of the system even if they have never used it? If you have had a job for 6+ years and have never used EI then this system will brand you as an occasional user. You are either a long-tenured worker or defined as an occasional or frequent user of the system.
So young person with massive student debt is punished as user of system they may never have used. They of all people ought to be given a chance to find work in their field after going through what they have for an education and shouldering the debt for that.
This government is Orwellian-- defining things as they wish without regard for facts.
Imagine a person who graduates from University at age 24 and then for 6 years works in their field and is let go at age 30. They are defined as an occasional user having never used EI. They have limited coverage having to find a job faster than older workers and must take any job after 18 weeks.
I think there ought to be an age-discrimination lawsuit here.
Sorry I was incomplete on this:
Women who take time off to be with a small child and return to the workforce will be branded users even if they never were and face discriminatory terms.
People who had small businesses and did not pay in to EI will be branded users as well.
So former small business owners, women and youth are all screwed by this.
This is the result of taking a government run insurance fund and turning it into a general revenue insurance scam that gets everyone taxed directly for an insurance policy that pays very few people for their losses. The more people a government denies benefits to the greater the tax grab. We need to go back to first principles and that is the program should be a fully funded insurance system. Until the fund was converted to general revenues it covered a higher percentage of workers and still managed to generate a surplus, which means the benefits could have been enhanced instead of coverage restricted.