Are you kidding me? According to this article, the Conservatives have been negotiating with the Lib's for one day and this twerp of an MP is already throwing out threats?
... Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, a member of the bipartisan working group struck last month to negotiate an agreement with the Liberals on EI reforms, says the Harper government will "never" accept Ignatieff's proposal.
He goes on to mis characterise what has been suggested, but what's important here is what it says once again about this disingenuous, thuggish group of people that call themselves government. They obviously never had any intention of actually working out a fair package, one that would actually work toward rebuilding the economy.
In fact, putting Poilievre on the panel is a clear indication in itself that this about posturing and sound bites.
For instance, what does this mean?
Conservatives have issued a thinly veiled ultimatum to Michael Ignatieff: Drop your proposal for easier access to employment insurance or there'll be no election-averting deal on EI reform.
What? They are going to renege on opposition days? Is the man who believes himself to be king going to rejig things again so that the opposition cannot actually oppose or take this government down?
Negotiations should prove interesting going forward.
28 comments:
He can't renege on the Fall opposition days. It's part of the standing orders now.
This is just Pierre acting out. Time to change his diapers again.
You obviously missed the comments from this twit on day 0.
Anon 1.. That's true isn't it? Hmmm, I can't believe Poilievre is going to drop this. Did you read how many times he used the bogus term...blah, blah, work year.
Wonder what they are up to.
Anon @ 6:38. His comments were valid. I know we were ready to go in June and the Con's have jerked this whole process around.
The leader of the party suggesting what he hopes to come out of the negotiations is hardly the same as junior whining about made up demands....ie Con talking points.
How can you guys be surprised by any of this? Harper sold your leader a pig in a poke, and Iggy was so desperate to buy it because he was afraid of going to an election.
You guys should have followed Scott Reid's advice back in January: "Kill him; kill him dead". Instead, you let Harper live to see another day, and now he's going to mess with Iggy until he's done with him.
Now, if only there had been a way to get him out of 24 Sussex last winter ...
A reader...as much as I wanted to go, having watched polls since and listened to the public, I'm not sure it would have accomplished a damned thing.
You're obviously an NDP supporter whose leader had what to offer exactly?
When Jack or whomever takes his place actually leads a party that holds the same responsibility as either the Lib's or Con's, get back to me.
Besides, you got us into this mess in the first place.
Anon @ 6:38. His comments were valid. I know we were ready to go in June and the Con's have jerked this whole process around.
If this was such a problem back in June when liberals supposedly wanted it...why are we just hearing about it now?
A leader whining about things the day before they start....a jr minister responding.
Its all how you look at it KNB.
Did you not read how the Con's had put rules in place. No talk. No news about when, where, or how?
It's not how you read things, it's about being so myopic that you only read what suits.
He is in he riding of Roger Baker. I do not know how the people of that riding ever voted for a twerp from Alberta.
Anon @ 7;50, it could/should be said though, that Harper hails from one of the reddest ridings in Ontario...yet the YYC people/voters ignore that stuff.
It's tough to figure out.
Could anon's do me a favour please? Adopt a name or number and post under that. It need not identify you and it's super easy.
Sorting anon's is tedious.
I find the "reader's" comments amusing, considering his party voluntarily ceded any prospect of being part of this panel. What a shame really when you think about it, there was no reason the NDP couldn't have been part of this working group. Instead, they're confined to hurling crap from the cheap seats, and nobody can really hear them, on an issue that they've always championed. Nice strategy you got there, really clever. Geez.
Besides, you got us into this mess in the first place.
How's that? By refusing to bail you out of Paul Martin's promise to call an election within 30 days of the Gomery Commission report? Even if every NDP MP had voted to support the government in that vote, it was still going down, so please retire that one.
When Jack or whomever takes his place actually leads a party that holds the same responsibility as either the Lib's or Con's, get back to me.
In fact, it was the Liberals' deathly fear that NDPers would get federal government experience that caused you to turn your back on the coalition; not some kind of concern for the Canadian people.
You folks thought if you hung on you could get a majority on your own, and now you're looking at the numbers and your new messiah is getting outplayed badly, it's slipping away.
Jack has nothing to offer? That's funny, because you guys supported his EI motion laying out a comprehensive proposal to change the EI system. You also supported his Climate Change Bill, and I could list of a dozen more. Your folks in Parliament are the ones with little to offer ... virtually no private members' bills or motions, because you're afraid they'd get stomped on, and don't have the moxy to sell them instead.
By the way, your commenter who writes "He is in he riding of Roger Baker. I do not know how the people of that riding ever voted for a twerp from Alberta." should know that it was Walter Baker, not Roger.
Oh, and ps SteveV ... whoever said I was a guy? Oink oink.
Our party didn't "cede" the right to be on this stupid panel. We had a votable bill before Parliament that could have put Ignatieff's stated goal of a 360-hour eligibility requirement into effect, and been through 3rd reading by the end of June (Bill C-280). That you guys avoided voting on that in favour of a panel, without any guarantees who the Conservatives would put on it, is what makes me certain you had no intention of actually ever changing anything. Please pay attention.
A reader, I now know and understand just how delusional you all are.
I suppose I owe you thanks for the clarification.
First off, your vote had nothing to do with bailing out Martin. It had everything to do with your delusional belief that you could profit by that vote. In doing so, you brought us Harper, thank you very much. Your ads continue to push that prospect incidentally. Idiocy personified.
Two...ya, we were terrified, terrified I tell you, that you might gain fed experience. Are you serious? Trust me, no one is afraid of the NDP.
Man, the stance you take is laughable and that's why I don't support you, but if you read me at all, you'll know that I support many of your positions. I just don't support the party because you are pedalling backwards. Have been for years now.
Yes the Lib's supported some of your bills. Surprised? Shouldn't have voted to take Martin down.
Lastly, your comment to SteveV wasn't warranted.
Commenters here assume I'm male all the time. Don't get it, but also don't assign motive. You're barking up the wrong tree on that one.
That said, your bill was much broader than 360 and you know it. And, to pass it, would mean what exactly? Nada!
Chirping from the sidelines? Not a credible place to be at this point in time. Hasn't been for years.
Besides, you got us into this mess in the first place.
What?
I don't ever recall the NDP putting a gun to the head of various Liberal leaders....
Think c_wtf, before you draw.
You and the NDP can deny it all you want, but we wouldn't be here if Layton didn't put pride before prudence.
KNB, the motion was broader, but the bill was pretty specific. Layton said he'd entertain amendments on it, but it was basically the 360-hour qualification. Please check for yourself.
It could have gone somewhere if it got a royal recommendation, and Iggy could have made that part of his negotiations.
Don't worry, we know you don't take us seriously ... until you need our votes, and then we're the best buddies you ever had.
And to repeat, Paul Martin brought himself down. You're not in Ottawa; I am. The public service couldn't get a clear direction out of that government if their life depended on it ... and they had been looking forward to some clarity finally, after all the turmoils of the Chretien-Martin wars. That government was a joke; all tactics and no strategy, never mind strategic policy direction.
If Paul Martin had wanted the NDP's support, he wouldn't have scoffed "you don't have the votes, Jack" when we tried to get something out of him on keeping healthcare public in return for those votes. Martin's people wanted to be brought down because they thought they could win that election. They even boasted that they didn't have to campaign until after Christmas. Boy, did they call that one wrong.
Blame a lot of people for your troubles, but honestly if the NDP was that important to the future of the country, your original thesis does not hold much water.
Sorry to be a bit muscular about it all, but to see you Liberals wringing your hands about all this EI stuff now is kind of tragic, when it was entirely predictable.
To be honest about it, the NDP saved your bacon last December, because you guys would have been dead if the public subsidies got cut. A lot of Conservatives thought we were nuts not to cut you loose on that one, but darn it all, we actually believed in the principle of public funding (and I notice no Liberals accused us of not taking the time to read that part of the economic statement).
So pardon us for not accepting the Liberals' divine right to rule this country. You can get uppity about us never having a chance to do so, but you're not exactly in any position to do it without us yourselves either.
"Oh, and ps SteveV ... whoever said I was a guy? Oink oink."
Oh sorry, women are just usually more intuitive and insightful. My apologies for the gender confusion :)
One thing I've always found strange, all these cynical people, and yet they concurrently expose this crazy idealism, that betrays their "scoffing". It's so bizarre really, the contradiction.
"until you need our votes, and then we're the best buddies you ever had."
Sort of like all the kumbaya crap during the coalition, when Jack could see the brass ring and his supporters with giddy with undeserved power. Is that what you mean?
Oh sorry, women are just usually more intuitive and insightful.
Kind of digging yourself a bit further in, there, aren't you?
No, not really. I'm good thanks.
One thing I've always found strange, all these cynical people, and yet they concurrently expose this crazy idealism, that betrays their "scoffing". It's so bizarre really, the contradiction.
So are you slowly weaning yourself off Iggy then?
Layton and the NDP voted to keep our troops in Afghanistan by chickening out and voting with the Harper Cons.
For this alone I will never forgive them. Though I worked many years and do believe in many policies the NDP stood for, those days are done.
Nevermind the foot-shooting get-the-Liberals meme the NDP have been on, sacrificing real people for politics like Layton did is beyond politics. It's Harperesque in its wrongness.
JSPS (Just Some Poor Schmuck)
who will never vote NDP again as long as L. Emersonia lives!
Layton and the NDP voted to keep our troops in Afghanistan by chickening out and voting with the Harper Cons.
Could you please supply the Hansard citation for this utter piece of fiction?
"So are you slowly weaning yourself off Iggy then?"
Definitely, maybe.
Ah, yes - CWTF's big dream - to try to be some sort of influence to wean people off Iggy. LOL
Fact is the Harper manipulated Layton in 2005/6 - how did that go?
Too many elections? The last 3 were caused by Harper, Harper/Layton. Couldn't wait in Dec/2005 for a few more weeks....why? Because some of the Lib policies would have gone through Feb/06 - that's why.
Lyn
Layton may have triggered that election.
But Martin lost it.
And nothing they've said or done since, including in this very thread, implies that the Liberals understand why it happened.
(Let alone how to fix it. But here's a hint: real political parties have philosophies, and policies, and beliefs. )
Iggiot's on parade.
Post a Comment