Ignatieff pushing risky EI reforms: economists
Newsbot @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 11:59 am
Title: Ignatieff pushing risky EI reforms: economists
Category: Political
Posted By: stokes
Date: 2009-08-01 09:32:39
Canadian
ridenrain @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 11:59 am
If it was such a good idea, why didn't they do it when they were in charge?
It's a stupid idea. We need to help people who are losing their jobs, not people who just got a job and want the summer off.
Scape @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:27 pm
I agree however 700 hours is too much and even if he was to make it 360 it should be a one time option only but not permanent policy. The only reason why EI is even on the table is the downturn was so fast it highlighted the inconsistency in the program. Make it uniform but don't make it 9 weeks it should be at least 14.
ridenrain @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:42 pm
The people who are losing their jobs now were the ones working through the good period so they already qualify for EI. Reducing the threshold won't help those auto or forestry workers. It's simply pandering to he masses for political purposes.
.
leewgrant @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:53 pm
Scape Scape:
I agree however 700 hours is too much and even if he was to make it 360 it should be a one time option only but not permanent policy. The only reason why EI is even on the table is the downturn was so fast it highlighted the inconsistency in the program. Make it uniform but don't make it 9 weeks it should be at least 14.
It was the Liberals who introduced the idea of a variable entrance requirement. The only reason that they want to change it now is because they think it will be a vote getter. Can't believe though that Iggy would force an election over it.
ridenrain @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:16 pm
leewgrant leewgrant:
Scape Scape:
I agree however 700 hours is too much and even if he was to make it 360 it should be a one time option only but not permanent policy. The only reason why EI is even on the table is the downturn was so fast it highlighted the inconsistency in the program. Make it uniform but don't make it 9 weeks it should be at least 14.
It was the Liberals who introduced the idea of a variable entrance requirement. The only reason that they want to change it now is because they think it will be a vote getter. Can't believe though that Iggy would force an election over it.
That's not fair. Iggy was still an American back then.
The Bloc are saying they'll vote against this so the Libs are forced into supporting the government, forcing an election or abstaining AGAIN.
Scape @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:18 pm
I don't agree with lowering the standard but removing regional variable entrance requirement. That and making the self employed a part of the program hereby making the system more accessible and consistent. The markers for determining what the hours qualify should be determined by the Canadian economy's overall performance.
leewgrant @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:27 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
leewgrant leewgrant:
Scape Scape:
I agree however 700 hours is too much and even if he was to make it 360 it should be a one time option only but not permanent policy. The only reason why EI is even on the table is the downturn was so fast it highlighted the inconsistency in the program. Make it uniform but don't make it 9 weeks it should be at least 14.
It was the Liberals who introduced the idea of a variable entrance requirement. The only reason that they want to change it now is because they think it will be a vote getter. Can't believe though that Iggy would force an election over it.
That's not fair. Iggy was still an American back then.
The Bloc are saying they'll vote against this so the Libs are forced into supporting the government, forcing an election or abstaining AGAIN.
If Iggy keeps propping up the government Libs will wonder how he is different from Dion.
Scape @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:06 pm
So far, in style only. Drop the green shift and he's the same guy.
stokes @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:12 pm
I wonder since he was out of Canada for sooooo long maybe he forgot all about the effects that happened last time, which was not such a good thing 
I have to agree with all the comments here though, a general do-over of the whole EI system may not be the best answer but making it more accessible to all might just work.....but not after 360 hours!!!!!
ridenrain @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:13 pm
Iggy had far more potential, which makes it so much more the loss.
He's educated, worldly and pragmatic. He's just running for the wrong party, that's all.
EyeBrock @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:58 pm
I agree. He'd be a great Tory. Crap Liberal though.
OnTheIce @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:05 pm
It's a terrible idea, as the past shows us that it encourages system abuse.
It will be interesting to see if these economists are worthy of Liberal supporter attention, like the ones regarding the recession...their opinion was respected.
leewgrant @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:37 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
Iggy had far more potential, which makes it so much more the loss.
He's educated, worldly and pragmatic. He's just running for the wrong party, that's all.
He's educated, worldly and pragmatic. He's just running for the wrong party, that's all.
I think he's going to have to change his public profile. I watch Question Period occasionally and he as Leader of the the Opposition always asks the first question. I regard him as coming across as a condescending academic. If he portrays that during an election campaign it'll lose him votes.
Curtman @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:28 pm
leewgrant leewgrant:
I regard him as coming across as a condescending academic. If he portrays that during an election campaign it'll lose him votes.
Yeah, the pooping puffin was classy. Iggy just uses his words.