Jack Layton: `Why I´m voting with Stephen Harper`

This unemployed forestry worker family member says not by a long shot. In fact, the Cons are up to  more than a few dirty tricks in respect to EI access and entitlements.

Stingy Liberals want a phony-majority power grab but not help any workers whatsoever. They had their chance to eat blunders and crap wonders while in government for twelve years and then feigning opposition to the Harpers since 2006. The time to actually oppose has come and gone for the Liberal Party, a political party that has been out of touch and out of tune with ordinary Canadians for the last 30 years.

As it happens I support Layton's EI stance. But damn, did he have to title that article "Why I'm voting with Stephen Harper"?! Salt in the wound!

SCB4 wrote:

As it happens I support Layton's EI stance. But damn, did he have to title that article "Why I'm voting with Stephen Harper"?! Salt in the wound!

 

I had the same reaction, but I wonder whether Layton wrote the title or if that was the title the media gave it?

Michelle wrote:

No one picks their own headlines in the paper.  That's up to the headline writers. 

Even leaders of national political parties? You'd think Layton's comms people would want to exercise some control over the title. But anyhow, what's done is done.

Stuart_Parker wrote:

Can I ask: what portion of New Democrats who now endorse this position supported the previous position of voting against the stimulus bill and all the other recession relief policies on the grounds that a vote for Harper was wrong, plain and simple?

"The Liberals, so my tribe thought, handed the New Democrats a precious gift shortly after Stephane Dion was elected red-team leader.

The Liberals started supporting Stephen Harper's government. They did this in many ways. Explicitly, in private committee meetings and on selected votes (for example, by voting to support scab labour during industrial disputes). And implicitly, through a long chain of abstentions on numerous key votes, each potentially defeating the Conservative government.

The New Democrats hoped this practice, continued under Michael Ignatieff, could be used to persuade some Liberals to switch their votes. Every conceivable communications device was deployed to make sure Canadians knew that the Liberals were supporting the Harper government in the House.

What did the orange team learn?

They learned that when Canadians aren't looking for an election, that means they aren't looking for opposition parties to vote to cause an election. And so, fun as it was to torture the Liberals with their numerous votes and abstentions (especially in all-candidates meetings last election), it turned out that nobody outside of Ottawa was watching, and nobody cared."

So, I guess the short answer is: they changed their minds.

I'll wait and see how this unfolds but I have to say I didn't think Jack looked great when he declared he'd vote against Harper's Budget without seeing it. It's hard to argue that we need a minority government and the NDP can make a difference in one if your position is: "We'll never work with these guys at all ever"

The 'now' part is what's relevant.

If you are talking about what most people except the commentariat think, Jack having said in January he would not support the budget no matter what, is totally irrelevant now, and never had the relevance people here ascribed to it.

Is what Jack does and says right now going to look good to people on this board? No way. And at least to a very large degree that is deserved.

How is it going to look to the rest of NDP's universe of supporters and potential supporters?

Jury's out on that one. He's very unlikely to end up looking bad or foolish- precisely because even most people who take politics seriously don't really care about that inside the beltway stuff. And even people who see that stuff, and know there is a heavy dose of unspoken self interest in the NDPs actions, care more that an election is unecessary and undesirable; and that there may be concrete benefits in what Layton and the NDP have done and may do.

Michelle wrote:

Judy Rebick: "I just want to start by saying that these so-called reforms to the EI system that the Harper government has put forward, and that the NDP looks like they're going to prop up the Harper government to pass, SUCK."

And what precisly has Judy achieved on EI reform?  I dearly respect Judy Rebick, but unless she is going to try to become elected and deal with the concrete reality of actually getting something done in a parliament where it is impossible to impose your will on the majority acheiving something is better than going on and on about a theoritcal postion.

I am still fascinated by the fact that during the late 80s and into the 90s the position of helping older workers by extending their benefits in recognition of their verified harder ability to garner re-employment was the height of progressive reform.  Now it isn't.  Big change that.

 The EI bill likely needs to be amended (hard to know as no one has passed me a copy of the legislation for some reason ) to make sure it does that, but this sudden change of face by many of the same progressives that used to argue in favour of this kind of measure is profoundly revealing.  I don't know if Judy Rebick was ever involved with these issues back then, but I know from personal experience many of her cohorts were. Yet somehow the times they are a changin' now that the glass is half full rather than sitting on the shelf collecting dust where we could dream about what to put in it.

No people see politicians as squabbling children and would like them to work together in the greater interests of Canada.  While it is true that mostly people don't care about an election being called we have now reached a saturation point for the average non-ideological voter and they don't give a rat's rear end about who is the actual government as much as they want politicians to stop behaving like toddlers and to share the sandbox.  Dig into the polls and it shows this over and over again.

We policy-political wonks can't stand the idea of a Harper government - the average person just doesn't care that much because they think all politicains are pretty much the same.  It is this deep cynicism that the Conservative play to time and time again.

Thanks remind.  I am going to have a good run through on the Bill as soon as I have time.

Up until a few days ago, I was reserving judgement on whether supporting Harper's so-called "EI reform" was tactically the right thing to do.

But as the details have come out on how little this EI bill will do, Layton and the NDP should have told Harper to shove this bill where the sun doesn't shine.

You have to bear in mind that I'm speaking as someone who has worked with the unemployed for the better part of two decades.   This so-called "reform" will do nothing for the folks I deal with who have already fallen off the EI system...who are on social assistance, who are racking up huge debts to tide themselves over, who have lost their homes etc.

The NDP should not be content to accept crumbs for the unemployed from Harper's budget table.   $57 billion has been robbed from the unemployed by successive Liberal and Tory governments.   This so-called "reform" puts less than a billion back into the pockets of the unemployed...there's $56 billion left to go.

Also, Harper is trying to divide the unemployed into the so-called "deserving unemployed" and the "undeserving unemployed"...those working in precarious employment, the long-term unemployed etc.  The so-called "undeserving unemployed" are largely women, young people, those from immigrant communities etc.  Layton and the NDP supporting the Harper bill plays into this attempt by the right-wing to demonize large segments of the unemployed.

True, I've always supported the NDP as the best political party (outside Quebec) to defend the interests of working people (in the broadest sense of the term).   But that support is not uncritical.    I don't believe in giving any party a "blank cheque".    And when the NDP is doing something incredibly stupid I'm going to say so.

We need to turn up the heat on all of the political parties on EI.   At last night's Toronto town hall on EI, Daniel Champagne from the Montreal Labour Council gave some good examples of previous "parallel" campaigns on EI that have run in Quebec.   It's no accident that EI reform is a major issue in Quebec and that the  BQ has taken fairly strong positions on EI over the years...often stronger than the NDP. In Quebec there is enough of a mass movement to force the parties to listen.

So my view is that we can't trust the political parties, we have to put our trust in building broad-based social movements...movements that are strong enough so that all parties have to listen to them.

radiorahim wrote:

This so-called "reform" will do nothing for the folks I deal with who have already fallen off the EI system...who are on social assistance, who are racking up huge debts to tide themselves over, who have lost their homes etc.

Ummmmm....... what kind of  EI reform, right now this minute, would help those who have already fallen off the EI system and who are on income assistance and have lost their homes, etc?

Seriously what do YOU see it as being? I am seriously interested in knowing what YOU would do for them.

Or do you just see that if these people are already in that positon, so why shouldn't 100's of thousands of others be there too? And that the NDP should just piss off from helping them until bigger reforms can occur, maybe 4-8 year, at best, down the road?

Because we personally, are in the position that this small reform, will not help us, but I do not begrudge those, whom it will help, the help. We do not all have to be equally living in misery, where we cannot help each other at all.

So...if you have some actual ideas for implimentation that could helps us,  immediately, that the NDP should push for and hasn't already in the numerous Bills on EI reform that they have going on currently, then I am all for hearing about them, so I can push the NDP forward on them too.

Stockholm I don't give a rat's ass about what's good for the NDP.   What I care about is what's good for the unemployed.

I care about the fact that the NDP is playing into Harper and the right-wing's long term agenda of demonizing large segments of the unemployed as somehow "undeserving" of help.

The NDP is not using their position to demand major concessions from the Harpocons.   Instead, what they're doing is helping Harper push through measures that they'd planned to push through anyway...even Harper is feeling the heat and has to be perceived as doing "something".

The NDP is an unreliable ally of the unemployed at best.

The Labour movement and social movements were asleep at the switch all summer.  Especially after Ignatieff EI gunfight at the Harper Coral ended up getting him wounded and settling for a "BLUE RIBBON" task force.  So little was said and heard over summer, that the Liberals were content to walk away from EI reform. Infact, the Liberals had no conviction for supporting the reforms presented by the CLC or various labour groups.  The more the CPC shouted 45 days, the less interested the Liberals became. Where were the REBICKS and others all summer?  The Liberals announced that they would NOT bring down the government over EI. 

The program for Career Assistance for Long Tenured Worker is a small program that costs 300million/ year to implement. Thats a paltry 900million over three years, but this is more then the previous Liberals and Conservatives have ever bothered to put into EI in the last 15 years. It was far easier for the Liberals to TAKE 46 BILLION and hand it over to their corporate pals, and easier for the Conservatives to Divert 8 Billion in 2 years to their pet projects.

The EI bill that the NDP produced which the Liberals support until they oppose it, is when groups needed to speak up and say, what the hell is going on here. Does anyone give a shit about the unemployed or is this simply Ignatieff doing an about face, because EI was popular, then realizing it wasn't that popular with the working public, to walk away from it.

To me, its better late then never for Labour and Social groups to speak out.  It would be wrong to deny those Long tenured workers that qualify the extra benefits.  Get those benefits through so that they are shared across Canada, instead of regionally, as is presently the case with Career Transition for Long Tenured WOrkers.

Then FIGHT and FIGHT LIKE HELL to get back the benefits that the Liberals stole from the Employees and put the Harper governments feet to the fire to reinstate those lost benefits.  But it requires lots of noise, and as soon as there is enough noise, not only will the government be brought down, I wouldn't be surprised to watch the Liberals campaign on EI reform.

In the meantime, hell isn't freezing over, and from what I can tell, the NDP has yet to support eliminating womens rights, unlike their Liberal Counterparts.

Still waiting on radiorahim's ideas and proposed actions that we can all get behind, which have not already been proposed by the NDP.

Well most definitely I agree with that too, who wouldn't, at first blush,  but I am wanting to know what the movement will be based upon, and what to push for and discuss with others, in an effort to get them joining said movement.

I really want to know what is different than what the NDP have already been pushing for.

"Stockholm I don't give a rat's ass about what's good for the NDP.   What I care about is what's good for the unemployed."

Fine, so how is it good for the unemployed to have a snap election that will likely result in the election of a totally reactionary government that will take the results as a mandate to withdraw what few crumbs are currently on offer to the unemployed?? How?

How you respond in a political crisis like this one is what counts most of all.   Has the NDP used its position to make any additional more "radical" demands of the Harper government as a pre-condition for support?   Not at all.

They've simply accepted whatever "crummy" reforms that the Harper government has put forward.   It's the "half a loaf is better than no loaf" argument.   But this can go on forever.  It can become a quarter loaf, an eighth loaf...or in this case a 1/57th loaf...given the $57 billion stolen from the EI fund.

Only about 10% of the unemployed will receive will see any money in their pockets as a result of this change.    And when the rubber hits the road, my guess is that probably an even smaller number of the unemployed will receive any help...the devil always being in the details and how it ends up being implemented by the bureaucracy.

I think that the position put forward by Toronto's "Good Jobs Coalition" should be a starting point for talk of EI reform.

1.  Reduce the qualifying period to 360 hours

2.  EI benefits for 50 weeks for workers in all regions of the country.

          Provide a "special extension" of EI benefits for one year while the national unemployment rate remains above 6.5% paid from general revenues and to extend "EI Part 1" benefits to cover the entire period that a worker is in a retraining programme.

3.  Raise EI benefit rates to 60% of a workers earnings using their 12 best weeks of earnings.   Raise the maximum benefit payable, abolish the "allocation" of severance pay and eliminate the two week waiting period.

Workers are in an economic crisis and need to be "bailed out" as much or more than the banks and the corporations.   The NDP needs to speak out bluntly about this and stop "pussy-footing" around.    They'd actually gain support this way and wouldn't look like a bunch of frightened opportunists trying to avoid an election campaign.

As for saying that the labour and social movements have been "asleep", I say bullshit.    I can only speak of what's happening in the Toronto area...not  being that familiar with what's happening elsewhere.

There have been large noisy demonstrations at EI offices here since the spring.  Also demonstrations held at both Iggy and Tory MP's offices...like Peter Kent and Jim Flaherty.    There was a major EI demonstration involving thousands back in June.  Also last night's "town hall" meeting at Ryerson University.    Oh yeah and several busloads of demonstrators picketed Diane Finley's office in Simcoe a few short weeks ago.

So the labour and social movements are far from "asleep"...although much more needs to be done.

What we need as an ally, is an NDP with some guts.  We're not getting it.

Nobody is saying that supporting older workers is "evil and satanic".  That's ridiculous.  Show me where anyone has said that.  Anyone at all.

That might be an over simplification, but look at the way many posters in this thread, including your linked comments from Judy, describe what is being offered.  It isn't crumbs and it isn't a slap in the face to other workers.  It is exactly what some older worker need and what we progressive always said we wanted, until we didn't apparently. 

If the arguments were this is good, but to be great we need more like this...    Then that would be fine.  However, the arguments are being made that this isn't perfect for everyone so stuff it.  That is not only foolish it is disrespectful for the thousands of workers this change will help.

Michelle wrote:

I don't know, I guess I just feel like he's not demanding enough.  Now, if the Conservatives WANT an election, then sure, they won't budge.  But I'm not so sure that an election would return a Harper majority.  If it did, that would be terrible for unemployed people, I agree.  But if it returned a Liberal minority, then perhaps they'd be easier to reason with and to wring concessions from than the Conservatives.

Hmmm, I recall Layton trying to 'reason with' and 'wring concessions from' a Liberal minority gov't in Nov 2005 and coming up empty handed.

BTW, we had a number of older workers at the town hall yesterday, and I know that radiorahim, who was there last night too, works with mostly older workers who have been downsized.  And you know what they were telling us?  That a good number of them won't even be helped by this legislation because they won't qualify.  That's why they're calling it "crumbs".