I think that makes a lot of sense, JKR. I stand to be corrected, but I believe Layton's proposal involves raising the maximum insurable earnings, as well as the benefit, so it does anticipate a more progressive financing of the plan, along the lines you've suggested. I'd have to go back and double-check (unlikely at this hour, but I'll keep an eye out).
Can Jack get the Cons to agree Part 11
Wed, 2011-02-23 03:40
#52
Wed, 2011-02-23 13:22
#53
This is one reason why Layton needs to send out very mixed signals and make the Tories think that he might actually be trying to avoid an election. Its better that the Tories think that the only way to get an election is to give the NDP nothing.
Wed, 2011-02-23 13:43
#54
It just occurs to me a likely way Harper can throw out some tacks for Layton and the NDP.
We tend to think of the dynamic as a negotiation discussion between Harper and Layton. Where ultimately Harper just walks away; or tells Layton what he would do, gets turned down because its too little, and the specifics are never specified because the futile attempt is not put in the Budget,
But Harper might simply table into the Budget what is designed to look like they are making a sincere effort, but they are reasonably certain the NDP will consider to be too little. The idea to turn the tables on who doesnt look good. [Layton turning down will always look good around here, but not with a lot of swing voters if it is set up right.]
Possible, and may see this.
But I'm guessing not. Because if the Cons want an election- and I'm pretty sure they do- then that would leave too much to chance. They cannot know what Layton would not take... except to pitch at such a stingy level that the offer earns no brownie points with swing voters.
Wed, 2011-02-23 13:54
#55
Good!!!
Cash for rural doctors doesn't guarantee NDP budget support
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/cash-for-ru...
Wed, 2011-02-23 14:48
#56
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
This is one reason why Layton needs to send out very mixed signals and make the Tories think that he might actually be trying to avoid an election.
Unfortunately, mixed signals don't give the electorate a whole lot of confidence.
Wed, 2011-02-23 15:48
#57
Nervous nellies, the bunch of them.
Wed, 2011-02-23 16:00
#58
The only thing worse than being talked about is NOT being talked about. If layton can succeed in making himself the centre of attention for the next four weeks - what's not to like?
Wed, 2011-02-23 16:10
#59
Gotta love The Jurist at Accidental Deliberations:
A quick message to those who have spent the better part of the last month spreading the Lib-serving theory that the NDP would seize on any theoretical concession the Cons might offer in order to pass a budget: try again.
Wed, 2011-02-23 17:32
#60
Pogo
Did anyone else hear the panel at CTV talking about the effect of MP pensions. Basically that if we hold off on calling an election a lot of politicians will get their pension eligibility.
Wed, 2011-02-23 17:39
#61
They will all be aware of that, but I don't believe it will be a decisive factor at all.
Wed, 2011-02-23 17:49
#62
NDPPDid anyone else hear the panel at CTV talking about the effect of MP pensions. Basically that if we hold off on calling an election a lot of politicians will get their pension eligibility.
when I raised this earlier it was rejected and denounced out of hand. Supposedly our pols, ( especially Jack and Olivia), are above such things
Wed, 2011-02-23 18:01
#63
They are above such things....I think that is a complete non-factor.
Wed, 2011-02-23 18:05
#64
Pogo
I would think it would be more of a factor with the Conservatives. First because Harper is known for his loyalty to his fellow MPs and secondly because they are the biggest faction of seats in on the edge of pension eligibility (I am assuming this).
Wed, 2011-02-23 20:02
#65
Here is Jack closing that barn door: talking about the likelihood of Harper hyping things in the Budget that are just cosmetic gestures to what the NDP asked for.
Good long quote in there, but I cant cut and paste from it. Someone else wants to do it, that would be great.
Wed, 2011-02-23 20:46
#66
Malcolm
A couple of disjointed observations.
__________________________________
Long laundry lists of policies are . . . idiotic, counterproductive, stupid &c.
Short lists of commitments work.
Like the HarperCons with their five priorities.
So, a Layton list of (say) five items (each one of which could have multiple points buty the talking point has to be bite sized), with at least two of the items easily achievable - comparable, say to Harper's GST cut.
Perhaps:
1. Ensuring retirement security for Canadians. Over the first mandate, and NDP government will double GIS and OAS and will implement a plan to double CPP over ten years. (Or something like that.)
2. Action on Climate Change. (Short summary of the bill Tory Senators killed.)
3. Addressing the doctor shortage. (As per the plan I've seen laid out elsewhere in the last two days.)
4. Tax fairness. (Cancelling the planned extension of corporate tax cuts and reversing the last two rounds. Etc., Etc.)
5. Democratic Reform. (Abolish the Senate. Proportional Representation.)
______________________________________________
Slamming that talentless hack Dobbin is entirely legitimate. When someone pretends to be a thoughtful commentator on national affairs, one has some obligation to use what passes for a brain. Mindless parroting of Liberal talking points and corporate media spin - which is all I've seen from Dobbin for years - is not thoughtful commentary.
_____________________________________________
Wed, 2011-02-23 22:09
#67
This visual aid is excellent material for an NDP ad or brochure. Click on it.
PM Harper acts as if he has a majority government
http://www.oyetimes.com/views/columns/9735-pm-harper-acts-as-if-he-has-a...
Wed, 2011-02-23 22:14
#68
@JFK
Keep it up, You know you are on to something when you feel the heat. Nice list, Im not really into reform politics, but at least now you are publicly standing for something. Good on you man.
Wed, 2011-02-23 22:23
#69
For all you people that have been asking how the NDP could pay from all those reforms. It's easy, stop letting the bourgeoisie control the purse strings.
Here in Toronto people are bickering because they can not find the money to pay for the type of City they want. So they start pointing the fingers at one another, blaming City and TTC workers for being greedy and taking all the money.
Fact is, the corporate profits made in Toronto are not paying their fair share.
Low corporate and wealth tax and high consumption tax is the name of their game. As they control the argument.
Wed, 2011-02-23 22:27
#70
But lets be real with ourselves.
The inter Capitalist setup is designed towards the monopoly. The monopoly of power and wealth.
If you want to build an equitable society, it can not be done under Capitalism. It's pure delusion to think you can keep tweaking and reforming it for the better of all.
Wed, 2011-02-23 22:31
#71
I think Dobbin's done some excellent work. It can't be dipper cheerleading all the time, even here.
Wed, 2011-02-23 22:32
#72
So, Layton is making the rounds of interviews with the news bureaux in Ottawa. First was with Mark Kennedy at Postmedia (formerly Canwest), and now Heather Scoffield (currently with CP).
As Ken says, the stories all run quite long, and have a lot of quotes in them.
(Anyone see Iggy in the news much recently? I saw him once saying that "polls don't matter". He's been in incumbent ridings all week).
Wed, 2011-02-23 22:41
#73
You want to pay for all those reforms? Take control of the means of production. At present it is the bourgeoisie with their Capitalist economy that does. They decide what gets built and what does not.
If you want universal drug coverage, you have to ask them to do it.
If you want set up a child care program, you have to ask them to do it.
If you want to provide better education, you have to ask them to do it.
You want drug rehabe centers, you have top ask them for it.
The working class can not set up the systems it choices, why? Because the working class does not control the means of production. We sell our labour power to them and they decide what happens after that.
Bicker all you want about winning this or that election and how to pay for everything in a Bourgeois state running a Capitalist economy. Your just chasing your tail, selling yourself short.
This is how it is:
The means of production are going to be controlled either by individual bourgeoisie, a bourgeois Government bureaucracy both using some form of Capitalism. Or the working class using a Socialist economy.
Wed, 2011-02-23 22:49
#74
Actually Jack seems to handling things well seeing as the NDP has only 37 out of 308 seats at the moment but we all know that's gonna change next election. And the polls are looking good for the NDP, with Nanos, Canada's most reliable pollster, placing the NDP at 19% Canadawide, and in particular in Ontario at close to 24%. There could well be a Bob Rae factor at work there. Anyway keep it up Bob and the NDP may end up with 30% in Ontario before too much longer.
The Conservatives have signalled that they're interested in the NDP's proposals for helping impoverished seniors -- although the ideas being pondered by the Tories are not nearly as generous as the $700-million-a-year improvements to the Guaranteed Income Supplement demanded by the NDP.Similarly, the Tories on Wednesday made an effort to invest in training more doctors and nurses for rural areas. But again, the 100 people that would be helped by the $40 million announced by Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq are just a drop in the bucket compared to the 7,200 people and $200 million the NDP is asking for.
"It seems to be a very small fraction of what we've been talking about," Layton said in a phone interview from Toronto. "There are five million Canadians without family physicians.... It's not in the range of what is needed, that's for sure."
As for the other NDP demands, Harper's reaction has ranged from dismissive to "defeatist," Layton said.
The NDP wants the government to remove the harmonized sales tax on home heating, a move the party says would cost the federal treasury about $700 million a year.
But Layton said Harper seems to want nothing to do with topics linked to the unpopular HST.
"It didn't seem to be the topic he wanted to spend much time on, let's put it that way," Layton said.
"He doesn't want to be associated with the HST, even though he and the Liberals combined to ram it through Parliament."
On the NDP's request to expand the Canada Pension Plan over time, Harper said any movement on the CPP would depend on the provinces -- even though his own government championed such an option just a few months ago.
"It seems to me that they're taking sort of a defeatist attitude towards it," Layton said.
The NDP leader said Harper had a similar "defeatist" approach to job creation in the wake of the recession, telling Layton that full recovery in Canada would depend on the fortunes of the United States.
And on rolling back the plans to cut corporate tax, Harper would have none of it, Layton said.
The prime minister did commit to not cutting corporate tax again, after the current round of tax cuts comes to an end in 2012, Layton said. But that was hardly any consolation for the NDP leader, who believes the foregone tax revenue could be better spent elsewhere.
Still, it's too early to conclude that the Conservatives are not ready to work with the NDP, Layton said.
When MPs return next Monday from a week in their ridings, they'll be analyzing Harper's every word, and asking pointed questions about how they can move forward with their agenda, Layton added.
"You never know how things are going to unfold."
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110223/jack-layton-says-caucus-will-b...
Wed, 2011-02-23 23:13
#75
The recent Nanos' polling for the NDP in Ontario is up from 18.2% in the last election, which is a 5.2% increase. Not too shabby at all, and so it seems like there is a reasonably good chance of Layton's team adding 10 more seats in Ontario alone in the next election. Bring on Quebec.
Wed, 2011-02-23 23:34
#76
The recent Nanos' polling for the NDP in Ontario is up from 18.2% in the last election, which is a 5.2% increase. Not too shabby at all, and so it seems like there is a reasonably good chance of Layton's team adding 10 more seats in Ontario alone in the next election.
The NDP in Ontario needs to treat this upcoming federal campaign as a dress rehearsal for the provincial run later this fall.
Wed, 2011-02-23 23:42
#77
I think I would have a different take on that one, AriD. The provincial one in the fall needs a good result from us federally in the spring first.
Thu, 2011-02-24 00:22
#78
The recent Nanos' polling for the NDP in Ontario is up from 18.2% in the last election, which is a 5.2% increase. Not too shabby at all, and so it seems like there is a reasonably good chance of Layton's team adding 10 more seats in Ontario alone in the next election. Bring on Quebec.
Well, to do that they'd have to win all 9 seats where they were within 20% in the last election. And one other.
Thu, 2011-02-24 01:14
#79
In the previous (2008) election, for the seats that changed hands, I wonder what the percentages were required to move, in order to win the seats.
How many seats total changed hands in total?
0% to 5 % - number of seats =
6% to 10% - number of seats =
11% to 15% - number of seats =
16% to 20% - number of seats =
21% to 25% - number of seats =
26% or more - number of seats =
Thu, 2011-02-24 03:06
#80
Malcolm
I think Dobbin's done some excellent work. It can't be dipper cheerleading all the time, even here.
I think Dobbin did some excellent work many, many, many years ago.
Of late, all he does is repeat Liberal talking points and corporate media spin.
Either Murray has lost any capcity for critical thinking, or he's been replaced with a pod person.
Either way, I don't recall seeing much Dobbin worth reading in a VERY long time.
Thu, 2011-02-24 04:21
#81
In the previous (2008) election, for the seats that changed hands, I wonder what the percentages were required to move, in order to win the seats.
How many seats total changed hands in total?
0% to 5 % - number of seats =
6% to 10% - number of seats =
11% to 15% - number of seats =
16% to 20% - number of seats =
21% to 25% - number of seats =
26% or more - number of seats =
Here's the seats that changed in the last election:
http://www.punditsguide.ca/elections/?elec_event=22&qry=1
Not counting the 4 seats that flipped in byelections, 39 seats changed. Of those, 9 were won by more than 10% in 2006. 4 of 9 were open seats, and 3 of the 9 were Conservative seats in Nefoundland
Thu, 2011-02-24 07:18
#82
I think Dobbin's done some excellent work. It can't be dipper cheerleading all the time, even here.
Oh but indeed it can.
Thu, 2011-02-24 08:00
#83
So calling Dobbin on being led by the nose [again] by the latest Liberal-driven media narrative.... thats "Dipper cheerleading"?
Thu, 2011-02-24 08:18
#84
Are Bill Curry AND John Ibbitson Liberal operatives?
NDP takes corporate tax cuts off the table - by BILL CURRY AND JOHN IBBITSON
Did "a senior NDP official" tell the Globe and Mail that the NDP took corporate tax cuts off the table?
Has the NDP come out and stated that this "senior NDP official lied" or that Curry and Ibbitson lied?
Without answering these questions it is unfair to attack Dobbin or the Liberals or anyone else other then the "senior NDP official" or Curry and Ibbitson if the NDP states that a "senior NDP official" never said what was quoted to them in the article.
Thu, 2011-02-24 08:34
#85
I have said, and I will repeat, that it is utterly obvious to anyone (especially Jack Layton) that there will be no deal on the budget which requires rolling back the corporate tax cuts. Thus, it would be idiotic at best, or bad faith bargaining at worst, for Layton to be demanding that as a condition for for his support. The NDP put forward four points, none of which include tax cuts. Indeed, if the NDP achieved significant gains on those points, I would applaud them for brilliant bargaining, even if the tax cuts went ahead.
ETA: And, needless to say, if the NDP did come out of this with some significant rollback of the tax cuts as well, I would happily eat my words and wash them down with a shot of bile. Don't reserve your tickets for that performance just yet, however.
Thu, 2011-02-24 08:49
#86
Harper's going to go ahead with corporate tax cuts. The Conservatives are not about to reverse their position that tax cuts benefit the economy. The Conservatives plan on making this argument that tax cuts are good until kingdom come. If there's one thing the Conservatives are all about it's tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. They're not about to weaken the meme they and the right have worked so hard to create here and abroad.
Also,
If the Globe and Mail had reported that Ignatieff and the Liberals had taken corporate tax cuts off the table, would anyone be critisizing Dobbin for writing a similar article aimed at the Liberals?
Thu, 2011-02-24 09:03
#87
That is silly JKR.
You would NEVER react to a narrative like that by saying that people passing the story around are incorrect- let alone say they lied. That is the best way to give the story legs.
And you would not do that even if the story put you on the defensive- let alone in this case where the groundwork was in place to just let it get shuffled aside.
Besides- it isnt "lies" anyway. That isnt the point. Spin distortion is spin distortion- whether or not all the elements of the spin are facts. There is much more in that narrative than merely the observation that the corporate tax cuts are not part of the negotiations.
Curry and Ibbitson are more reliable than average- less likely to spin pure BS- but they are looking for eyeballs like anyone else. So as well as the fact as Unionist says we all know that corporate tax cuts were no longer a primary live point of contention for the moment... the whole narrative they are spouting is nothing more than spin. And the addition of "senior NDP official" is just gratuitous.
So its one thing for Curry and Ibbitson to pander this crap- it is their job in the trained seal show. But if Dobbin wasnt so eager to buy in, he'd have known it was a set-up. So eager that just hours after he rushes in there is already concrete evidence that his regurgitated story line was bunk.. not to mention that the dots were easy to connect even before that evidence was out there.
Thu, 2011-02-24 09:15
#88
Isn't it fortunate that journalists still insist on protecting their sources for the most part? Otherwise we'd have at least some veracity to toss around. Dobbin's mistake is in expecting an entirely untenable positioning to occur and then piggybacking on a non-story just for kicks.
Thu, 2011-02-24 09:15
#89
The tax cuts already happened. They would have to be rolled back, which makes it that much more unlikely.
Sidepoint- but I dont remember seeing any media ever saying that the Liberals had taken the tax cuts off the table. I dont know why I ask, because you are really stretching for a point even if some reporter somewhere did say so.
And whether we are talking political negotiations, collective bargaining, or business deals, no on ever just takes a major element "off the table" the way the term is being thrown around. If you know pressing that particular element is a deal killer, and you therefore are not going to get it, you still don't just "take it off the table". You very much bring it 'into the room,' talk about why you have to have it, and only gradualy work around to acknowledging that it will not be pressed now: establishing both that the demand will have to be dealt with in the future, and the implicit but clear quid pro quo that even in temporarily setting it aside, you have to get something significant.
In fact, we did see later the evidence that the political version of that did happen around the corporate tax cuts in the Layton-Harper discussion.
Thu, 2011-02-24 10:56
#90
Let's also keep in mind that rolling back corporate tax cuts is a means to an end - not an end in itself. I for one want corporate tax cuts rolled back because that would give the government extra revenue that can be used for things like the NDP's list of demands etc...I want the corporate tax cuts rolled back because of what the money can be used for - not because i feel like beating up on big businesses. If the GIS and CPP could be massively enriched - i don't really care whether the government pays for it by cancelling corporate tax cuts, increasing marginal tax rates on income over $100k, or by cancelling plans to spend more on prisons and fighter jets!
Thu, 2011-02-24 11:03
#91
I think there's some reason to believe the NDP might have been trying to persuade the government to change "across the board" corporate tax cuts into some kind of job creation tax credit. In other words, a change from giving money to already profitable corporations, many of whom increased their profit margins by moving jobs out of the country, to an incentive to create jobs here.
The implications of the two are quite different -- both in terms of the country's balance sheet, and the incentives contained therein.
I for one would have applauded such a move. In any event, I think when it's said that corporate taxes were off the table, it could have been a signal that the proposal for a job creation tax credit was a non-starter.
Thu, 2011-02-24 11:05
#92
Jack has positioned the party as saying when government spends it can have a transformative effect on peoples lives: family doctor, no more senior poverty, protect the environment, and improve later life economic security.
This contrasts with the Cons approach, give more money to the private sector and all will be well.
I also like the comparison of NDP priorities with the Cons spending spree on jets, ships, and prisons.
Wed, 2011-03-02 20:03
#93
Is Flaherty's offer of budget help for seniors enough for the NDP?
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/02/is-flahertys-offer-of-budget-help-for...
Wed, 2011-03-02 20:05
#94
Is Flaherty's offer of budget help for seniors enough for the NDP?
But after declaring there would be no significant new spending, and repeating yet again that the budget's main focus would be reducing deficits and getting the government's book back in the black, Flaherty pointedly signaled the likelihood of measures that might allow Layton to tick off at least one item from his NDP budget wish list.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/02/is-flahertys-offer-of-budget-help-for...
Wed, 2011-03-02 20:14
#95
Boom Boom
I doubt it. There's too much stench (Bev Oda, In and Out Scandal, corporate tax cuts, planes and prisons, etc...) coming from the Con Caucus for Jack Layton to deviate from his four demands. If he gives in, the Cons can do a heck of a lot more damage before an election has to be called.
Wed, 2011-03-02 20:20
#96
I just don't see any of those issues, combined or separately, moving many voters in the polling booth
Wed, 2011-03-02 20:22
#97
The NDP would do well to focus on the bread and butter issues - jobs, health care, environment and education. Stuff like that.
Wed, 2011-03-02 20:40
#98
And here's why from Canada's independent pollster. Unprompted has been highlighted because it explains Nanos Research success
Healthcare and jobs/economy still the top issues for Canadians (Nanos Poll completed Feb. 14th, 2011)
Nik on the Numbers
The latest wave of Nanos issue tracking indicated that Canadians continue to cite healthcare (22.9%) and jobs/economy (20.2%) as their top issues of concern, followed by the environment (10.3%), education (5.3%) and the debt/deficit (5.2%).
The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website along with the national trendline. You can also register to receive automatic polling updates.
Methodology
Between February 11th and February 14th, 2011, Nanos Research conducted a random telephone survey of 1,016 Canadians 18 years of age and older. A random telephone survey of 1,016 Canadians is accurate plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Results for December 2010 are from a random telephone survey of 1,002 Canadians conducted between November 29th and December 2nd, 2010. A random telephone survey of 1,002 Canadians is accurate plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Top Issue Question: What is your most important NATIONAL issue of concern? [Unprompted]
The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the last Nanos National Omnibus survey completed December 2nd, 2010.
National (n=1,016)
Top Five Issues
Healthcare: 22.9% (+2.2)
Jobs/economy: 20.2% (-2.1)
The environment: 10.3% (+2.3)
Education: 5.3% (no change)
Debt/deficit: 5.2% (+0.4)
Unsure: 12.4% (-2.8)
Feel free to forward this e-mail. Any use of the poll should identify the source as the latest "Nanos Poll."
Wed, 2011-03-02 21:08
#99
Boom Boom
I just don't see any of those issues, combined or separately, moving many voters in the polling booth
Yeah, but if he gives in after getting next to nothing from Harper, Jack's integrity - or the party's - goes down the tubes.
ETA: However, I think enough Liberals will get the 'flu that the Budget passes, without the NDP's help.
Wed, 2011-03-02 21:31
#100
It doesn't appear that the NDP will support the budget
Budget set for March 22, but will NDP support it?
NDP Leader Jack Layton says the prime minister "isn't giving much of a signal" that he wants to avoid an election, as the opposition parties prepare for a showdown over the March 22 budget.
Late Wednesday morning, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty confirmed the date the budget would be unveiled, saying it would be a responsible budget with no new major spending programs or tax increases.
Hours later, Layton said he still believes the demands he has made as a trade-off for his party's support of the budget are "practical and doable" despite the clear signals of government belt-tightening in order to pay down the deficit.
"There's no reason why the government couldn't adopt them," Layton told CTV's Power Play Wednesday evening. "I think maybe Stephen Harper would prefer to see an election. He certainly isn't giving much of a signal that he wants to work with us."
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110302/flaherty-budget-a...
Wed, 2011-03-02 23:36
#101
Boom Boom
Maybe the fix is in... the Libs have already decided enough of them will stay at home on the Budget vote that it passes?