New leader of the NDP - A Sepratist?

Boges · August 2, 2011

There is no such thing as a provincial NDP. The NDP unlike the other parties is one party, Federal and provincial. The provincial Liberal parties, by contrast, have no affiliation with the LPOC and the CPC has no affiliation with the various provincial Progressive Conservative parties such as the ones in Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland or Nova Scotia, or the Saskatchewan Party a/k/a Saskatories.

So who's Andrea Horvath then? Does she answer to Jack Layton or this new lady we're debating?

Boges · August 2, 2011

Tell me, Boges. How much more does someone in Alberta pay to the federal government in income taxes than someone in Quebec?

I have no idea. Please tell me. I'd assume it's the same.

Please don't tell me you're denying that Quebec has received preferential from the Feds for quite some time now.

cybercoma · August 2, 2011

I'm saying transfer payments are not as simple as you're making them out to be.

M.Dancer · August 2, 2011

No I am saying that is stupid argument that doesn't work because she was a member of one group supporting federalism and another supporting separatism at the same time. I was pointing out your logical fallacy I see it went over your head.

One is a political party which has a political platform...the other a union...one has come out in favour of separation, the other has never to my knowledge made an unequivical statement supporting unity

cybercoma · August 2, 2011

It's interesting to see people complain about the critics claiming Harper has a secret agenda, then the people that support Stephen Harper turn around and use the same backhanded smear tactics against their opponents. You can't have it both ways.

punked · August 2, 2011

I have no idea. Please tell me. I'd assume it's the same.

Please don't tell me you're denying that Quebec has received preferential from the Feds for quite some time now.

Yah but remember the east paid for the railroads and oil towers in Alberta. No one holds that against them we live in a federation where when one does good we all do good. That is the beauty of our great country.

punked · August 2, 2011

One is a political party which has a political platform...the other a union...one has come out in favour of separation, the other has never to my knowledge made an unequivical statement supporting unity

What are you talking about. Mrs. Turmel penned a Editorial in 2006 which signed her name to as the leader of a union saying "THIS UNION'S STANCE IS ONE FOR FEDERALISM". You are just mad because now you look dumb because even though it was posted in this thread 5 times you never read it because you are blinded by your hate of the French. Get over it. She is the leader of a Federalist party which has ALWAYS been a Federalist party, and has in the past said she was a Federalist. End of story. You want to see her birth certificate now or where she was on 911? Maybe if you are lucky you can bring back the ghost of Joseph McCarthy or at the very least find his list and Add Mrs. Turmel's name to it. I bet she was a witch at Salem as well correct?

Wow the Conservatives around here jumped the Shark pretty fast. There is so little for them to point to that their own party has done or is doing they must destroy everyone else instead. Sad.

CPCFTW · August 2, 2011

Haha so much anger. Lefties willfully blind to their party's anti-Canada background. They'll vote to destroy the country in exchange for a promise of free pensions, abortions, and gay marriages for all (at the expense of the evil corporations of course!).

punked · August 2, 2011

Haha so much anger. Lefties willfully blind to their party's anti-Canada background. They'll vote to destroy the country in exchange for a promise of free pensions, abortions, and gay marriages for all (at the expense of the evil corporations of course!).

I'm not angry you guys can be as crazy as you want to be. That is the country we live in. However I just like to point out how crazy you are being. BTW we are arguing nothing that you mention. Probably because you know that we would win that argument instead your side has chosen to go the birthed root. No substance in this thread buddy

Edited August 2, 2011 by punked

M.Dancer · August 2, 2011

What are you talking about. Mrs. Turmel penned a Editorial in 2006 which signed her name to as the leader of a union saying "THIS UNION'S STANCE IS ONE FOR FEDERALISM".

Show me

It certainly ain't here...

http://wp.psacbc.com/2006/03/06/psac-endorses-blocs-progressive-policies-not-its-goal-of-separatism/

punked · August 2, 2011

Show me

It certainly ain't here...

http://wp.psacbc.com/2006/03/06/psac-endorses-blocs-progressive-policies-not-its-goal-of-separatism/

So you are saying "We not support the Blocs goal of separatism"is an endorsement of separatism not a refutation of it. Got it, here maybe you can pass this as the new Conservative motto next Convention you have.

"WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"

Seems very fitting here.

Boges · August 2, 2011

This thread is getting tiresome now. The NDP will be rather irrelevant for at least 4 years anyway.

They were more powerful with 40 odd seats in a minority situation.

M.Dancer · August 2, 2011

So you are saying "We not support the Blocs goal of separatism"is an endorsement of separatism not a refutation of it. Got it, here maybe you can pass this as the new Conservative motto next Convention you have.

Well it certainly doesn't say that. It says something like that (why do you keep putting statement in quote, when the statement does not appear? Are you unaware what quotes are for or are you merely trying to snow me?) ....in the headline, which of course the letter writer did not pen...that was put in by an editor at the Citizen... :lol:

She does say:

I suggest that your acknowledgement of a fiscal imbalance and lack of support for measures to ameliorate it will do more to undermine workers and businesses, including the Citizen, whose livelihoods depend more on a strong federal government than on the endorsement and democratic election of a Bloc MP.

Edited August 2, 2011 by M.Dancer

punked · August 2, 2011

Just thought I would post A letter Harper wrote about how and why he would put Alberta ahead of our Federalist system. Oh I would also ask "Where is the outrage?"

Dear Premier Klein:

During and since the recent federal election, we have been among a large number of Albertans discussing the future of our province. We are not dismayed by the outcome of the election so much as by the strategy employed by the current federal government to secure its re-election. In our view, the Chretien government undertook a series of attacks not merely designed to defeat its partisan opponents, but to marginalize Alberta and Albertans within Canada’s political system. One well-documented incident was the attack against Alberta’s health care system. To your credit, you vehemently protested the unprecedented attack ads that the federal government launched against Alberta’s policies – policies the Prime Minister had previously found no fault with.

However, while your protest was necessary and appreciated by Albertans, we believe that it is not enough to respond only with protests. If the government in Ottawa concludes that Alberta is a soft target, we will be subjected to much worse than dishonest television ads. The Prime Minister has already signaled as much by announcing his so called “tough love” campaign for the West.

We believe the time has come for Albertans to take greater charge of our own future. This means resuming control of the powers that we possess under the constitution of Canada but that we have allowed the federal government to exercise. Intelligent use of these powers will help Alberta build a prosperous future in spite of a misguided and increasingly hostile government in Ottawa.

Under the heading of the “Alberta Agenda,” we propose that our province move forward on the following fronts:

• Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan offering the same benefits at lower cost while giving Alberta control over the investment fund. Pensions are a provincial responsibility under section 94A of the Constitution Act. 1867; and the legislation setting up the Canada Pension Plan permits a province to run its own plan, as Quebec has done from the beginning. If Quebec can do it, why not Alberta?

• Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income tax. Now that your government has made the historic innovation of the single-rate personal income tax, there is no reason to have Ottawa collect our revenue. Any incremental cost of collecting our own personal income tax would be far outweighed by the policy flexibility that Alberta would gain, as Quebec’s experience has shown.

• Start preparing now to let the contract with the RCMP run out in 2012 and create an Alberta Provincial Police Force. Alberta is a major province. Like the other major provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we should have our own provincial police force. We have no doubt that Alberta can run a more efficient and effective police force than Ottawa can – one that will not be misused as a laboratory for experiments in social engineering.

• Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may try to impose under the Canada Health Act. Albertans deserve better than the long waiting periods and technological backwardness that are rapidly coming to characterize Canadian medicine. Alberta should also argue that each province should raise its own revenue for health care – i.e., replace Canada Health and Social Transfer cash with tax points as Quebec has argued for many years. Poorer provinces would continue to rely on Equalization to

ensure they have adequate revenues.

• Use section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate reform back onto the national agenda. Our reading of that decision is that the federal government and other provinces must seriously consider a proposal for constitutional reform endorsed by “a clear majority on a clear question” in a provincial referendum. You acted decisively once before to hold a senatorial election. Now is the time to drive the issue further.

All of these steps can be taken using the constitutional powers that Alberta now possesses. In addition, we believe it is imperative for you to take all possible political and legal measures to reduce the financial drain on Alberta caused by Canada’s tax-and-transfer system. The most recent Alberta Treasury estimates are that Albertans transfer $2,600 per capita annually to other Canadians, for a total outflow from our province approaching $8 billion a year. The same federal politicians who accuse us of not sharing their “Canadian values” have no compunction about appropriating our Canadian dollars to buy votes elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Premier, we acknowledge the constructive reforms that your government made in the 1990s – balancing the budget, paying down the provincial debt, privatizing government services, getting Albertans off welfare and into jobs, introducing a single-rate tax, pulling government out of the business of subsidizing business, and many other beneficial changes. But no government can rest on its laurels. An economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta’s prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power. It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction.

Once Alberta’s position is secured, only our imagination will limit the prospects for extending the reform agenda that your government undertook eight years ago. To cite only a few examples, lower taxes will unleash the energies of the private sector, easing conditions for Charter Schools will help individual freedom and improve public education, and greater use of the referendum and initiative will bring Albertans into closer touch with their own government.

The precondition for the success of this Alberta Agenda is the exercise of all our legitimate provincial jurisdictions under the constitution of Canada. Starting to act now will secure the future for all Albertans.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen HARPER, President, National Citizens Coalition

punked · August 2, 2011

Well it certainly doesn't say that. It says something like that (why do you keep putting statement in quote, when the statement does not appear? Are you unaware what quotes are for or are you merely trying to snow me?) ....in the headline, which of course the letter writer did not pen...that was put in by an editor at the Citizen...

She does say:

The article clearly says that she nor her union Supports Federalism in the title. I know you can't read but whatevs I posted a nice letter from Harper for you to read. Have fun can't wait for you to dissect every word of it as well.

cybercoma · August 2, 2011

I know a number of people in Quebec that had voted for the BQ because their policies most closely aligned with their political beliefs, except for separatism. The BQ filled a huge gap in the political spectrum in Quebec. They're not the one-dimensional party that the NDP-bashers are making them out to be.

M.Dancer · August 2, 2011

I know a number of people in Quebec that had voted for the BQ because their policies most closely aligned with their political beliefs, except for separatism. The BQ filled a huge gap in the political spectrum in Quebec. They're not the one-dimensional party that the NDP-bashers are making them out to be.

Were they also members of the party?

punked · August 2, 2011

I know a number of people in Quebec that had voted for the BQ because their policies most closely aligned with their political beliefs, except for separatism. The BQ filled a huge gap in the political spectrum in Quebec. They're not the one-dimensional party that the NDP-bashers are making them out to be.

Its black and white in these guys world unless we are talking about the Conservative party then they are allowed to be all things to all people and we should ignore their past and never say a bad thing about them. It is pure craziness.

M.Dancer · August 2, 2011

The article clearly says that she nor her union Supports Federalism in the title.

Really? the article clearly says that in the title?

:lol: :lol:

Vineon · August 2, 2011

Go read her endorsement it is posted on this thread are to lazy? It is right there in black and white. There were plenty of Federalist that supported the Bloc in 2006 to stop Harper. The Bloc got 42.1% of the vote in 2006 while Sepratism was polling at 25%.

Utter bullshit.

Québec sovereignty support has been hovering within the 38-45% range for decades now. Never, in decades of polling, was "separatism polled at 25%".

In fact, this 42.1% is quite in tune with the current support for Québec sovereignty.

punked · August 2, 2011

Really? the article clearly says that in the title?

:lol:

What does it say then Dancer. Please tell me because I fail to see how saying "PSAC endorses Bloc’s progressive policies, not its goal of separatism" is not a repudiation of of separatism. I know it is hard for you to read so spell out your logic. Stop dancing around it. Please tell me what you get from that title.

punked · August 2, 2011

Utter bullshit.

Québec sovereignty support has been hovering within the 38-45% range for decades now. Never, in decades of polling, was "separatism polled at 25%".

In fact, this 42.1% is quite in tune with the current support for Québec sovereignty.

No it really isn't. If you ask a yes no question depending on what you ask you might get that number. However when you make the question like AR did you get a 20-25% hard line separatist base, and you find everyone else in Quebec wants to be part of Canada with differing degrees of power invested in the province.

M.Dancer · August 2, 2011

What does it say then Dancer. Please tell me because I fail to see how saying "PSAC endorses Bloc’s progressive policies, not its goal of separatism" is not a repudiation of of separatism. I know it is hard for you to read so spell out your logic. Stop dancing around it. Please tell me what you get from that title.

This is what you said.

The article clearly says that she nor her union Supports Federalism in the title.

I hope you realize that the article :lol: is a letter to the editor....and that she did not write the headline....an Ottawa Citizen editor did... :lol:

punked · August 2, 2011

This is what you said.

I hope you realize that the article is a letter to the editor....and that she did not write the headline....an Ottawa Citizen editor did...

I realize that the letter was posted on PSAC website before it was published in the Ottawa Citizen with that same title. Weird how they predicted what title the Ottawa Citizen would put on it. They should use their new psychic powers to help the country out a little don't you think?

Edited August 2, 2011 by punked

Vineon · August 2, 2011

I don't think they need to do that at all. They can just ignore the province's petty demands. Quebec gets so much more money from the Fed than any other province, the Fed needs to stop bribing Quebec!

This is not true any way you look at it.

In terms of raw total amount of transfer payments transfered from Ottawa to the provinces, Ontario gets the most. It is also the most populated province, which means we really rather should look at transfers per capita.

... and if we do that, the Maritime provinces and Manitoba (and the territories) receive more federal transfer payments per capita than does Québec, putting it in the middle of the pack.