Who is the elitist now?

Scott Reid has the breast best idea yet.

"It offers a crisp cleavage with the government that, properly communicated, can lend the Liberals and their leader some desperately needed definition."

It's often difficult for a party to find that one issue that will resonate clearly with enough Canadians not only to make a difference in an election, but to define the party as well.  Scott Reid may have identified it:

"When Stephen Harper can, Stephen Harper does behave like the most conservative prime minister in our nation's history. So fear not, all you howl-at-the-moon Milton Friedmans. His unwillingness to expand the CPP — which ranks as just about the most successful pension-income security plan in the developed world — is bold confirmation that Ayn Rand still triumphs over common sense, public interest and sound policy in Harper's Ottawa."

Reid suggests three moves the Liberals should make:

(Have Igatieff) personally lead the charge and to persuasively state the problem — preferably in plain, uncomplicated language: Working Canadians are worried their pension income will be so low they won't ever find it possible to retire. Harper suggests new private sector savings options. But one in four Canadians already can't contribute a single dollar to their RRSPs.  The better way is to build on the CPP. It includes all Canadians — not just some.

(H)it on Harper's motivations...Harper and the Conservatives prefer private pension plans sold by banks and insurance companies instead of the CPP. That's because they can afford to pay into private pension plans. Most people can't. Just like most people don't have those large taxpayer-funded pensions that Harper and his cabinet get. Initially, every province but one said yes to helping all Canadians by building on the CPP. Stephen Harper said no. Just like he said no to a law that would have made Nortel pay pensioners and those on disability a fuller portion of what the company owed them.

(T)alk about the role of government: Ottawa has an obligation to act in the public interest, to help deliver opportunity to the middle class and to defend our seniors. In times like these when most people wonder if they'll ever be able to retire we need the national government to show national leadership. Stephen Harper believes the CPP is just another issue where government should step aside. Liberals believe government has an obligation to step up.

Nice.  Turn that whole elitist theme back onto harper and take on an issue that affects most Canadians.  We are all headed toward retirement and the economic landscape is looking more precarious every year.  The first wave of baby-boomers hits 65 this year.

Oh, and keep mentioning cleavage.  Gotta win over those older men.

You think "Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament" is rousing the public?

"nothing would galvanize even the most apathetic public servant like touching their pension"

No kidding.

Journalist Kathryn May explains why decent pensions were granted to public servants:

Secure and generous pensions were historically considered key to protecting the public service from corruption. Also, many public servants aren't as free as private sector workers to invest in the market because of potential conflicts of interest on policy issues they are working on.

Not only are public servants barred from certain investments, there are many other things they are barred from unless they take a leave of absence since such actions would constitute a conflict of interest, or violate policies they are subject to.

Furthermore, some of these people have been paying into these pensions for close to 25-30 years, planning for their retirement responsibly under a signed agreement they went into when they accepted their position.  I'd be pissed if my employer decided to welsh on that agreement after all those years.

And the pathetic reason Harper & Co. offer?  Many people in the private sector have crappy retirement plans.

So rather than put through measures to secure decent pensions for all working Canadians, they want to lower the bar for everyone - except themselves, that is.

Well...I've been saying that if the government squeezes public servants too hard, especially while kicking them in the face, serving them up as scapegoats, bashing them in committees, firing them for doing their jobs, they will start pushing back.

But union leaders say the government should be prepared for an all-out war with its employees if it tampers with their defined benefit pension plan or tries to convert it to a defined contribution plan as has happened in Britain.  

Them's fightin' woyds.

And it isn't just talk -

Canada's 18 federal unions are meeting in Ottawa for two days starting today to develop a united front against what they believe is the Harper government's gathering assault on the public service.



"When you attack people's retirement savings, you are asking for the fight of your life and I think it would be a most unwise thing for any political party to do. And if they did it to public servants, they would have to do it to the military and RCMP, and do they really want to annoy them?" said (Ron Cochrane, co-chair of the National Joint Council).

If Harper and Flaherty want to stick with that "public servants' generous pensions" line and how it's unfair considering the private sector generally doesn't have such security, they'll have trouble with this -

And the unions will be the first to pounce on MPs, judges and deputy ministers whose pensions are even richer than those of the rest of the public service.

With roughly 450,000 federal public servants, they and their families can create quite a painful pouncing.