Jack Layton does "Let's Make a Deal"

Was just at a social event with a lot of people from the Hill. They looked and sounded pretty upbeat to me.

Arthur, you remember how the media reacted last time Layton said ahead of time that they likely wouldn't support the budget? And then what happened last September when Iggy started sabre rattling for no good reason at all? THAT'S why Jack is trying to be constructive now, but let's just say that every evidence is that the Conservatives have no intention of being constructive, and we know it, and are very very ready to go.

You must know from long years of following the NDP that being underestimated always works to our favour, right?

I think its great the NDP is talking about employment insurance but they should specifically demand there be changes to the outdated the EI system. Its so unfair, people get fired for so many reasons and many Ontarians are not able to access any employment insurance when they lose their part time /temporary/contract jobs.

 

 

Its not enough to only look out for people who lost their unionized jobs , if any of the parties is serious about reaching out for support from  the apathetic low income precarious workers, they need to listen and do something for the large amount of marginalized workers.

I take it as a very good sign that all the other parties are attacking us, and that the Conservatives decided to create an attack ad against Jack. Very good sign. If you read the french papers, the Bloc is attacking us too.

The Liberal pollster had us at 19% in a very very large-sample poll. That's a pretty good base for us to be going into a campaign with. Ekos has us at 14.8 and the Greens at nearly 10. If the Greens get 10, I'll be a monkey's uncle.

Layton's a city councilor by trade and will try to get what he wants by any procedural means possible. He will sell this as "getting things done for working Canadians" or "Harper is unwilling to compromise despite being in a minority situation", depending on how things go. Win/win for the NDP unless they do something stupid like let the F-35s and extended mission slide through on small EI and CPP improvements. This is of course the downside to the extending-a-hat-to-those-in-power technique that social democrats have tried to make the dominant way of getting shit done.

No it was not small - unless you live in some kind of protective bubble. 

I've mentioned this before- I personally know two families, including my daughters, that those improvements made a big difference in their lives.  In fact, in my daughters case it allowed them to hang onto their home until other work was found when the bank was starting to swoop in.  For the other family it meant that they could stay in the area where there elderly father lives and care for him while work was found.  Work in many areas of the country is pretty damn hard to come by when one of the area's main employers pack up and leave.  Thankfully both those couples are now employed, even though it is not with as well paying a jobs and without benefits - at least they can pay the bills.

Yes, - the were temporary and that was a failing.

On the larger issue though if in a small community like mine two couples were helped out, (that I personally know) it is not hard to figure that there were lots and lots of people who were simlarly helped.

That might be small bananas to you two "or less than nothing" but to actual unemployed people facing hard time, it was a huge difference for them.  I really wish everyone could live in these pefectionist bubbles where only the most pure of things need only ever be contemplated.

Your comments are so full of inaccuracies and invented history it is hard to take seriously let along bother to correct.

This is on the front page of the NDP's website.  It obviously isn't the full deal, but it shows the kinds of things the NDP is focusing on.  And they are practical, tangible, believable and doable things that speak to where a lot of voters are right now. Things the Conservatives, and Liberals for that matter, will never agree too.  In other words Layton is setting the stage for the NDPs focus for the election.  An election that is coming and that the NDP clearly wants.

 

 

http://www.ndp.ca/press/put-partisan-games-aside-get-things-done-ndp

duncan cameron wrote:

For the record, Layton says that politics is about bringing people together. He opposes setting some people against other people for partisan advantage. 

Is there really that much interest out there in bringing people together with the Harperites and the Liberanos?

the NDP always gets bad press. i think it has something to do with how the owners of said press vote.

Quote:

I really wish everyone could live in these pefectionist bubbles where only the most pure of things need only ever be contemplated.

And by "perfectionist" you mean people in greater need getting what your friends got? I think that if you backup and take a breath you will note that i have nothing against your friends and that the elimination of all poverty is not "perfectionist" or idealist but is a easily achieveable goal that rich people in power simply choose not to do.

inukjuak wrote:

I really don't understand why Mr Layton gets bad press for providing nuanced statements about what his party will or will not do in response to a budget that has not yet been tabled. I want a party that is ready for an election...but even readier to work to improve things for the generality of the Canadian population. Is it just that a nuanced position doesn't make a very good headline? He's acting like the grownup in the room, and good for him for it.

Because it's not up to Jack Layton ..it's up to the press....the press has been taken over by the right and if the right wants to ignore or rip or prop up Jack Layton and the NDP they will...as it is right now they treat the NDP like a joke ...a no show ...and prop up only the Conservative and the Liberal...the rest don't count.

That's why I say the NDP should be just concentrating on the good things they are responsible for in this country..anything they come up with will be torn down and spit on by the media ..until they have a nation wide media that can rip the neocon to pieces and prop up the left it will be that way and make no mistake the media is the boss and they can make or break anyone..pretty well at any time.

You have noticed that Jack Layton is the grown up in the room..your right unfortunately it's just you and 15% of Canadians that can see that..the rest obviously can't.

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

I beleive the reference was to "bad press" around here, because its not the media knocking the NDP.

They dont directly knock the NDP, that is done here. The media get the reporting all secrewed up, heavily stilted by their low opinion of the NDP. That remains a subtext that "informs" the "analysis"... the NDP is afraid of an election because its goint to lose seats, they need to be seen as getting something from the Conservatives, the Caucus is divided, yada yada.

Whats funniest is people around here taking it as what is going on. Sheesh. 

The NDP is letting low expecations float out there in the media- because its more important to be seen as ready to do something useful. The low expectations will correct themselves later.

Babble has its own special version of the low expectations, but the speculation of what is to come is rooted in the same nonsense the media circulates.

The real history is that Martin rejected overtures to fix health care and to take further actions on a number of issues.  Martin forced an election he thought he was going to win.  Than ran the worse campaign in Canadian history, only surpassed by Dion.  That's the real story, not some fantasy that the NDP was in the tub with the Conservatives.  This oft repeated Liberal myth is pure hogwash.

many working poor people cant get ANY EI.

Well, it seems like though that its time we have an election that should be focus on those who never get anything, never get represented, and never have their voices heard in any political battles/campaign. not going to happen! Thats the problem with political compromises, the middle class and the poor get crumbs, and the really poor get nothing as usual.

takeitslowly wrote:

Well, it seems like though that its time we have an election that should be focus on those who never get anything, never get represented, and never have their voices heard in any political battles/campaign. not going to happen! Thats the problem with political compromises, the middle class and the poor get crumbs, and the really poor get nothing as usual.

  

It seems to me that a party must have priorities and therefore if it is trying to win middle class votes then the party's efforts in office will go to that class.  Not only is EI way to hard to get it is also a pittance for workers making retail store incomes. Besides most of the underclass work two or three jobs and therefore are effectively barred from drawing any benefits unless they lost all their jobs at once.  

I am glad Jack is acting like an adult and I hope he gets to make his points in the media but I doubt it. This idea that the press is biased against the NDP is very, very old. Tommy didn't get elected because he got favourable coverage in the MSM.  He got elected because he and his party met with people at their kitchen tables and in small halls were he gave great lectures.  I think that face to face engagement with voters will always be the NDP's best weapon.  Lets face it the NDP will never get favourable press in the MSM so it must use other means to meet and persuade voters.

Yep already there was a pundit saying there is Jack in a top hat with flowers and a box of chocolates running to Harper and Harper aint giving him the time of day....already they got him painted as a friggin clown....Canadians suck it up and laugh....quit playing nice NDP..the country wants you swinging a machete in the conservative direction , come on rub Harpers nose in the mess he has created.....remember the last political leaders debate and Harper said "Canadians aren't worried about losing there homes and employment" rub their tory assed faces in it

takeitslowly wrote:

many working poor people cant get ANY EI.

That's right. What's needed is EI reform. In our discussions last year, I agreed with Lana Payne - president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour. Here's what she said in September 2009 about Harper's EI bill:

Lana Payne wrote:

I am a UI/EI junkie. Just wanted to get that out of the way. I would like to add that this proposal sets a dangerous precedent as it attacks and diminishes the principles of social insurance. Social insurance as we know is a lot different than experienced-based insurance. C-50 says an individual is entitled to extra benefits based on their experience with the EI system, how much they have collected in the past and how much they have paid in premiums. This is what the Liberals tried to do in the 1990s when they first introduced EI. At that time it was called the Intensity Rule and workers were penalized (with a lower benefit rate) for every 20 weeks of benefits they collected to a low of 50%, while everyone else got 55% of their average earnings.

Basing entitlement on past use of the EI system and how much you have paid into the system, changes the principles from social insurance to experience-rated insurance just the direction the Conservatives want. They are using the economic crisis to damage what has been a long-standing and very important program for Canadian working people.

In addition to being offended by who is left out in this EI proposal, we must also denounce the dangerous precedent that this sets.

We were successful in getting rid of that nasty Intensity Rule, but it took tremendous fightback - 11 MPs (Liberals) in Atlantic Canada lost their jobs as a result of those so-called EI reforms.

By the way, Duncan, it's good to see you here as always. But I'd like to remind you of what you said on the same topic. You were right - in theory - but I had a hard time then believing that you could see a way for the NDP to build on what was obviously a dirty little trap laid by Harper:

duncan cameron wrote:

This is a minority parliament. There are ways of opposing the government other than forcing an election. One way is (on second reading, approval in principle) to support a bill to change EI even if it offers only crumbs, and then in committee to bring in Armine, Stephen, Andrew Jackson and other experts to tell the public what is wrong with it, and how it should be amended.

Together the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc have a majority of votes. Since the government does not contribute to the EI fund, you could argue this is not a money bill and should be amended, even if spending does go up.

Perhaps we can learn the lessons of the past if we are not to repeat it?

[url=http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2009/09/18/ei-woes/]Source.[/url]

ETA: Actually, that whole page, and Armine Yalzinyan's lead article, are well worth reviewing, in light of the decisions that we need to make soon. Especially her cautionary note:

Armine Yalniyan wrote:

The Conservatives are again playing Parliament like a fiddle, and members of the Opposition risk getting Conned once again. I don’t envy them.

Me neither.

duncan cameron wrote:

Jack Layton is reminding people that the Harper government can get things done for Canadians.

Reminding? You mean, like we've all [b]forgotten[/b] how the Harper government can get things done for us? WTF?

duncan cameron wrote:

On a broader level, bringing together all farm families, salaried and waged employees, and those on a social wage, also qualify as bringing people together, and is entirely consistent with the need to struggle against the capitalist class as well.

Um, yeah, if your idea of "struggle against the capitalist class" is [url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/put-partisan-games-aside-get-things-done-ndp]"a small boost to the GIS and a modest increase to the Canada Pension Plan"[/url]!

You didn't go back and read the Progressive Economics page I linked to - did you Ken? Why not have a look and let's learn from past experience, instead of just scorning babblers who don't "give the NDP a fair shake".

 

Go Egypt!

But, Fidel, why should Layton be content with struggling for "a small boost to the GIS and a modest increase to the Canada Pension Plan"??? Why not be more bold and go for more? That's why some of us roll our eyes in this debate.

Because Canadians want parliament to work not another election.

And because somewhere less than two-thirds of eligible voters will actually vote regardless.

And because statistics show that young Canadians from families with incomes of between $20000 to $60000 are only half as likely to vote in elections as those in families with higher incomes.

Because the legitimacy of Canadian elections has deteriorated markedly since 1994. The well was poisoned with FTA-NAFTA sellouts, GST flip-flops, Mulroney-baloney and just an overall shitty economy and not much to votefor when your party lies to you like they have over the last 25 years. Three decades three recessions. Is it any wonder why Canadians are not enthusiastic about voting? We're in a transition  phase from paternalistic autocracy to Northern Puerto Ricandom. This one has to last a while before people decide to do something about it.

But not because the NDP doesn't think Canadians deserve better. It's only because the NDP wants to hang in there and play this absurd FPTP chess game with the two fat-cat parties. We have few other options. Jack is doing really well for the leader of a party that can't rely on Bay Street support and bankers giving us the wink and a nod as to when they're ready for a stooge-off.

You can always vote for the perfect parties. I really wish the Marxist and communist parties hadn't finished in 8th and 11th places and with zero seats between them last election. Those are the kind of electoral results we can expect for growing a pair.

What we need is to get to first base and introduce a little democracy in Ottawa. As an example, "baby steps",  like Jack says about Harper doing something about the red chamber filled with people who have absolutely nothing to do with democracy.