Friday, August 21, 2009


I'm just curious about something. Is it possible for a political party to make ANY move that isn't borne out of election strategy? The Conservatives released a completely disingenious and inflated cost analysis of the Liberal EI proposals. The Liberals have responded to the nonsensical claims, asking for an INDEPENDENT analysis of their proposal (nevermind that the initial Liberal cost estimate was based on an INDEPENDENT cost analysis from an NON PARTISAN BANK). I fail to see how this logical "request" is characterized in the way the media has portrayed:
Review of cost analysis of EI reform could set the stage for a fall election

Liberals have stroked the potential trigger of a fall election by asking Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page to examine what they say is an inflated Conservative cost analysis of their plan to revamp employment insurance.

Let's get this straight. It's now "stroking" to try and cut through the partisan spin and get something objective on the table. What's the alternative for the Liberals? Oh, let's just leave the bloated Con pricetag in the public realm, so we look fiscally irresponsible. Maybe, and I know it's hard, the media could REMEMBER why we're here. The Conservatives, and this has already been verified, or could be with a LITTLE journalism, have purposely "toyed" with the Liberal proposal. That's a fact, which isn't partisan and that's why the Liberals are confident turning this over to Page. How is trying to get a sound factual basis electioneering?

Seems to me, it's our media that is obsessed with an election. In fact, I'm willing to bet it all that they spend far more time entertaining and discussing the timing than the parties they routinely accuse of forever posturing. It's amazing to see a simple accounting request "spun" into a overt saber rattling affair.


Gayle said...

If they don'tmake it appear as though the LPC are ramping up to an electon, how can they claim Ignatieff has caved when there is no election?

Greg said...

In fairness, I think they mean that the mere request, is enough for the PM to go to the Governor General. No doubt this is coming from the PMO which is trying to scare "anonymous Liberal officials".

Anonymous said...

Here is the most telling thing to me in the article:

"The government, at the request of the working group, agreed to determine how much it would cost if the work requirement were set at such hourly levels as 390, 420 and 560. But Human Resources Minister Diane Finley told the meeting yesterday that she had asked her officials to stop that work because the government was not going to support a national standard"

The latest example of "making Parliament work," conservative style.

Fail. Try again, Diane.

Steve V said...

" I think they mean that the mere request, is enough for the PM to go to the Governor General"

I have no idea how you infer that, nor how this request would be cause for such an extraordinary "go" to the GG.


Sadly, that makes sense.

Steve V said...


I'm sure they stopped calculating, when they realized that even fudging those higher numbers didn't bring the "shocking" pricetag the hoped. I take that as a sign, that the higher threshold comes in at a relatively DOABLE cost.

Gayle said...

On the other hand, it may just be that the reporter is seeing the legitimacy of going to the polls over this, since so far the CPC are obviously not negotiating in good faith.

Geordie Tom said...

The EI situation is yesterday's news now. The vast majority of Canadians aren't interested in 'improving' EI. It was the pet subject for a short time while auto plants were closing but now, nobody from those plants would benefit from a changed EI entitlement.Our focus should be on job creation and I doubt we'll have an election based on EI.

Steve V said...

Don't necessarily disagree, EI will fade and it becomes a question of who has the plan to create jobs.

Frunger said...

Is it within the mandate of the Parlimentary Budget Officer to review, and substantiate partisan proposals like this?

He is supposed to be there for 'parliment', not for the benefit of one party.

Who wins the argument on costs comes down simply, to who do you trust. I think the Liberal party knows that they aren't trusted by the public, and need someone else to give the thumbs up. Kevin Page would do that for them.