Thursday #1
It's not often I agree , and even gush, over somebody else's opinion. This is one of those times. Thomas Walkom, of the Toronto Star, has nailed this one so well he would win the nail-driving contest at my Brother-in law's stag in the local barn. Here is the story, it is his opinion about the lopsided and illogical changes to the EI that benefits no one except the priviliged - the autoworkers. There is not one person who thinks that EI is working properly: from the people who would abolish it to those who would give it on demand for ever to anybody who wants it. This venerable insurance programme has been corrupted by politicians of all stripes and now is a minefield to wander through when you are most vulnerable - unemployed. So when there are thousands running out of benefit weeks, every week, and overwhelming the Social Assistance offices what does Harper and his neocons do? Give out more weeks to those who have only collected less than three times in the last ten years and have not, currently, claimed more than 35 weeks. Bizarre, silly and divisive. The NDP and the Bloc, who are keeping the Cons in power, and btw saving Iggy from a thrashing at the polls, are nuts. I wrote to most of the NDP caucus two days ago and asked them to examine this discriminatory change and guess what? No one answered, Jeez even Norlock has a better record than that!
11 comments:
The fools on the hill are polls-obsessed. The sad truth is that it's been some time since any of them looked much beyond self- preservation. As much as I detest the Reformers, at least they stick to their bible. The timid opposition parties might be surprised by the support they'd find if for once they did something out of principle. There's no use seeking respect, with that barely wagging tail between your legs.
Although my respect for the federal NDP is at an all time low, I would suggest that any politician probably needs more than 2 days to research and respond to a question.
Just don't count on liking their answer. If Layton has the gall to prop up these uncaring, callous tories, he is no better than them.
If they need two days to answer then that would be a longer time period than they had to accept the proposition as they did. Just another example of them asking for input and then ignoring it when they get. You are frustrated and they can brag about 'consulting'
Walkom points out the "practical politics" of the matter:
It should go over particularly well in two ridings that the Conservatives now hold but that the New Democrats lust after – Oshawa and the Windsor-area seat of Essex.
In last year's election, the NDP lost Oshawa by just 3,200 votes.
So that's the practical politics.
Layton, the leader of a political party trying to elect MPs, needs to attend to the practical politics of the issue. His support for whatever EI change he can get raises the NDP flag in the "Make Parliament Work" parade.
Walkom appears to agree with Layton's action, which is why he describes Layton's situation as a predicament.
If that is what agreement looks like, I am very pleased. It means people agree with me all the time. And here I thought they were disagreeing all this time.
I'm curious - how does one go about "mak(ing) parliament work" while continuing to support, propagate, practice and apply the same faulty strategies that one wants to do away with in the effort to "make parliament work"?
Perhaps, as the old saying " better to face the devil we know than one we don't" goes, we just don't have the stomach for it and would rather beat our gums to death about how we want to make big changes ( of something other than our underwear).
You have to jump off the train before you can change direction. Self preservation gets in the way of that every time. Again I say, the system stinks!
Ben and William:
What do you think of Walkom's Saturday column about the NDP? He gives a pretty comprehensive and accurate history of the party since its joyful inception and concludes it is a party in perpetual confusion.
I thought he nailed it.
Well, Deb, I agree with you (and Walkom) that all is not peaches and cream with the social democratic alternative. Reasonable men and women who support the involvement of government in the pursuit of the common good can and do disagree with the choices that Jack Layton and the NDP have made and are making today.
Manfred's comment is something else. He has made the point, endlessly it seems to me, that our system of government stinks. His purpose in doing so, it also seems to me, is to support the program advanced by our Prime Minister.
Harper has stated clearly and distinctly that there is no such thing as a good tax. Taxes are the principal source of government revenues. Harper's program is simply the devolution of government itself.
It seems to me that, both for Harper and for Manfred, the pursuit of the common good by a government supported by tax revenues is anathema.
Now, Manfred, I've been wrong before and may be wrong now. Say it isn't so.
Further, Deb, to my "confession" that all is not well with NDP politicians, here is an excerpt from a Green Party story describing the about-face of Gary Doer on the climate change issue:
"Former Manitoba Premier Gary Doer, once named by Business Week magazine as one of the top 20 international leaders who are combating climate change, seemed to change his tune on climate just before being awarded the post of Ambassador to the US. In a speech at the NDP convention, this Canadian leader, who was the first to endorse the Kyoto Protocol, referred to the international treaty as a “Trojan Horse” that threatened jobs in Canada, a familiar reprise of the Harper government position. Doer was appointed Ambassador two weeks later."
No, Manfred, though there are some cockroaches afoot in the halls of government, the system itself does not stink.
Allow me a final comment--will the guy never shut up?
This from Rafe Mair of The Tyee:
"We've come to look upon our elections as being 'three leaders plus Duceppe,' and vote accordingly. I know that point will bring out the cry 'I vote for the person, not the party.'
"To which I must reply, 'Obviously you have no idea how the system works and you should confine your political action to electing directors of your golf club where the candidate's opinion may have some bearing on how the place is run.'"
Perhaps Manfred's problem stems from a confusion of golf with government, of the fairway with the fair way.
Perhaps navigating the murky waters of politics is somewhat akin to navigating a sailboat upwind - to the left, then the right, then to the left and to the right again, and so on, until either the wind changes or you reach your goal. Neither all left nor all right will get you there, but a well planned combination of the two can usually succeed.
Are you right, am I right, is anybody right? We're all right, some of the time, and we're all wrong most of the other time. And so it is with our political leaders, regardless of what we think of them individually.
Elections just seem to be the way we've devised to facilitate the repeated changes in direction needed to navigate a country through the fickle and everchanging demands of its populace, as well as the swirling worldly political and economical currents. No one strategy can succeed on its own merits, of that I am sure.
As far as the notion of the accompanying odours goes, tell me they don't hold their noses whenever they have to do or say things that go against their personal convictions in order to make some 'progress' through the political jungle. Such is the 'cheating' that's required to get ahead and it makes them part of the entrenchment that prevents any real reform from being successful. Ultimately then, everybody in the system who thinks about doing some good, ends up having to do a drastically pared-down version of it under those terms and is resigned to doing whatever they can despite the serious limitations of the system. That, my friend, will never change and that's just one reason among several why I say it stinks.
Post a Comment