After the Nanaimo-Ladysmith disaster...what now for the NDP?

86 posts / 0 new
Last post
pietro_bcc

I disagree, but I'll go back to the topic at hand.

Sadly I don't think the NDP can do anything to win back Quebec with Singh. Ultimately the Journal de Montréal and LCN decide the mainstream narrative in Francophone Quebec. Go to almost all restaurants that have a TV and newspapers available in Montreal and its always LCN and Journal de Montréal. LCN and JdM are also the most popular news station and newspaper in Quebec.

For the past decade almost daily, they have been saying minorities bad, non Christian religious people bad, anglos/allophones bad, they frame all these groups as threats to Quebec (this is not speculation, I always read JdM when I go to a restaurant because I want to know what the mainstream Quebecois are consuming). Its Fox News style brainwashing, repeat the same thing over and over again and people's beliefs change. Google Journal de Montréal's opinion articles any day and the majority will likely be articles trashing minorities. LCN and JdM were most central to why people became so against religious minorities, they created this crisis. Nothing Singh does will deprogram a decade of brainwashing. At best Singh can win over the people who haven't been infected with the poison spewed by Quebecor anglos/allos, francophones from minority communities and young francophones.

Martin N.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
The NDP refused to change from their dated ideology and the Greens will simply eclipse them, replace them and render them irrelevant. No one wants to listen to NDP grievancemongers preaching to the choir. Younger generations want action on their priorities.

i

A classic mistake of attempting to force your product on the buyer rather than changing to products to suit demand. The NDP is stale-dated and about to be flushed by the Greens.

I'm curious about your logic in that post. The Greens agree with the climate change panic that you have repeatedly derided, and are also steadfast in their disapproval of any pipelines to the west coast and fracking and LNG in British Columbia. They are also supportive of the carbon tax. All of these are positions you have used to attack your version of the left.

Attacking? Hardly. You appear to be completely obtuse to any position other than swallowing group think.

Allow me to explain my position on 'climate change', 'global warming', whatever the latest buzzword the Jim Jones Brigade is obsessing over today.

To me, the manufactured crisis is irrelevant to the fact that we only have 2 miles of atmosphere and it should not be used as a waste dump. It should be nurtured. The same for the oceans, the land and the species that inhabit these spaces.

That said, I support all efforts to wean the earth off fossil fuels but pragmatism also dictates that the effort be done logically, not by pandering to uninformed numpties to garner votes.

The fact is that the world will not be weaned off oil for decades and it makes no sense to put the cart before the horse with incoherent policy that beggars this nation for no climate gain globally.

Setting a carbon tax to limit the affordability of fuel and then rebating the consumer so that they can buy more fuel is politically expedient but logically incoherent. 

In the context of this by-election, the Greens appeal to voters tired of stodgy NDP mantras but this win does nothing to dispel the notion that it is merely a shot across an entrenched managements' bow.

Martin N.

contrarianna wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
The NDP refused to change from their dated ideology and the Greens will simply eclipse them, replace them and render them irrelevant. No one wants to listen to NDP grievancemongers preaching to the choir. Younger generations want action on their priorities.

A classic mistake of attempting to force your product on the buyer rather than changing to products to suit demand. The NDP is stale-dated and about to be flushed by the Greens.

I'm curious about your logic in that post. The Greens agree with the climate change panic that you have repeatedly derided, and are also steadfast in their disapproval of any pipelines to the west coast and fracking and LNG in British Columbia. They are also supportive of the carbon tax. All of these are positions you have used to attack your version of the left.

There is not a shred of logical or ethical consistency in that the relentless tar sands and tanker shill Marqtin N. would advocate the Greens over the NDP.

But be not puzzled, these are the cynical machinations seen with our undemocratic first-past-the-post system (which of course he also supports, along with the fossil fuel industry).

The unvoiced consistency of his absurd contradictions is a desire to promote a win for the more avid climate destroyers by dividing support in the potentially less destructive parties. 

Karl Nuerenberg shows this apprehension in his article:

Paul Manly's Green victory is personal vindication and sends a message on climate change

....Good for Andrew Scheer's Conservatives?

Those who are, mostly, terrified that our first-past-the-post electoral system could deliver a cheap victory to Andrew Scheer's climate-change-denying Conservatives next time will worry about what the Nanaimo-Ladysmith results portend. With three parties, that at least rhetorically [emphasis mine] recognize the reality of the climate crisis, splitting the progressive vote, the let's-make-gas-cheaper-and-build-more-pipelines Conservatives could slip into power....

http://rabble.ca/news/2019/05/paul-manlys-green-victory-personal-vindica...

Fear not, the anxious NDP hysteric contrarianna has missed the point entirely. Your humble tar sands and tanker shill is merely positing that Nanaimo riding voters are not content with stodgy NDP policy in this byelection.

There is a certain incoherence in the 'let's make fuel more expensive to save the planet' advocates when they discover that they cannot afford the cost of living increases associated with more expensive fuel. There are worse things than a Conservative government other than a Librano government, of course and that is the unintended consequences of bad policy.

It is soothing, however, that the extremist fringe of the NDP is still 'woke' with pitchforks close at hand in the necessity of a burning at the stake or shill pillorying.

swallow swallow's picture

Svend Robinson:

Nanaimo by-election is wake up call to Federal NDP. Apology owed to for shameful treatment in 2015. And we must as party take clear stand opposing fracking and all new oil and gas infrastructure incl LNG, and Site C, champion UNDRIP + Pact for Green New Deal.

https://twitter.com/Svend4MP/status/1126021245810511872

Aristotleded24

swallow wrote:
Svend Robinson:

Nanaimo by-election is wake up call to Federal NDP. Apology owed to for shameful treatment in 2015. And we must as party take clear stand opposing fracking and all new oil and gas infrastructure incl LNG, and Site C, champion UNDRIP + Pact for Green New Deal.

https://twitter.com/Svend4MP/status/1126021245810511872

Shhhh Svend, you're not supposed to do that. NDP partisans are to sing the praises of the NDP at all times and never contradict the Establishment becuase the Establishment is never wrong. The Establishment is the way to go for the NDP. Just look at the current successes of the provincial NDP sections in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia and you'll see what I mean.

Aristotleded24

Martin N. wrote:
Allow me to explain my position on 'climate change', 'global warming', whatever the latest buzzword the Jim Jones Brigade is obsessing over today.

There's actual data and science behind that subject. That's what I'm concerned about, I don't care what anybody's personal position on that is.

Martin N. wrote:
That said, I support all efforts to wean the earth off fossil fuels but pragmatism also dictates that the effort be done logically, not by pandering to uninformed numpties to garner votes.

The fact is that the world will not be weaned off oil for decades and it makes no sense to put the cart before the horse with incoherent policy that beggars this nation for no climate gain globally.

Weaning the earth off of fossil fuels should be dictated first and foremost by what scientists are saying. If the science says we need to wean ourselves off in a decade, then we need to wean ourselves off in a decade. The planet's processes do not care about what is pragmatic for us economically. If we destroy our life support systems, we will cease to be. The other blind spot in your analysis is that fossil fuel companies have a great deal to lose in such a scenario, so of course they will try to block that however they can.

Martin N. wrote:
Setting a carbon tax to limit the affordability of fuel and then rebating the consumer so that they can buy more fuel is politically expedient but logically incoherent.

Again, this is a discussion we have had many times before. Since Trudeau seems to be someone you don't particularly like, I've also noticed that you've attacked him and it seems as if you're ascribing us supporting him. We have criticized the Liberals plenty on these forums. I don't know what you're attacking or what it is based on, but your comprehension of our positions and what this place about seems to lack.

Martin N. wrote:
In the context of this by-election, the Greens appeal to voters tired of stodgy NDP mantras but this win does nothing to dispel the notion that it is merely a shot across an entrenched managements' bow.

Do you mean stodgy NDP mantras like the need for a rapid transtion away from fossil fuels, no new pipelines, no liquified natural gas in BC, and no to the Site C dam? All 4 of those mantras are also Green Party mantras. The BC NDP is going ahead with the last 2 of those projects listed. Yet the Greens are gaining in public support across the country. If it is not these, what other specific things are you referring to?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Martin N. wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
The NDP refused to change from their dated ideology and the Greens will simply eclipse them, replace them and render them irrelevant. No one wants to listen to NDP grievancemongers preaching to the choir. Younger generations want action on their priorities.

i

A classic mistake of attempting to force your product on the buyer rather than changing to products to suit demand. The NDP is stale-dated and about to be flushed by the Greens.

I'm curious about your logic in that post. The Greens agree with the climate change panic that you have repeatedly derided, and are also steadfast in their disapproval of any pipelines to the west coast and fracking and LNG in British Columbia. They are also supportive of the carbon tax. All of these are positions you have used to attack your version of the left.

Attacking? Hardly. You appear to be completely obtuse to any position other than swallowing group think.

Allow me to explain my position on 'climate change', 'global warming', whatever the latest buzzword the Jim Jones Brigade is obsessing over today.

To me, the manufactured crisis is irrelevant to the fact that we only have 2 miles of atmosphere and it should not be used as a waste dump. It should be nurtured. The same for the oceans, the land and the species that inhabit these spaces.

That said, I support all efforts to wean the earth off fossil fuels but pragmatism also dictates that the effort be done logically, not by pandering to uninformed numpties to garner votes.

The fact is that the world will not be weaned off oil for decades and it makes no sense to put the cart before the horse with incoherent policy that beggars this nation for no climate gain globally.

Setting a carbon tax to limit the affordability of fuel and then rebating the consumer so that they can buy more fuel is politically expedient but logically incoherent. 

In the context of this by-election, the Greens appeal to voters tired of stodgy NDP mantras but this win does nothing to dispel the notion that it is merely a shot across an entrenched managements' bow.

What "stodgy mantras" and "dated ideology" would that be? Against the will of most of the rank and file, the NDP Executive Council spent much of the past few decades stripping the party of ANY ideology and, quite frankly, any core values at all.  There isn't anything else the party could move any further to the right on without losing any and all reason to exist.  And the main reason Manly won was that he personally came across as well to the left of the NDP.  As is the case with most of your post, you are being snidely dismissive of something, but none of the rest of us have any idea as to what, or why.

And, seriously..."The Jim Jones Brigade"? In what universe are people working to preserve life on this planet from the threat its been put under by the unjustified and relentless expansion of extractive industries comparable to a suicide cult?

you are truly a nasty piece of work and none of the recipients of your passive-aggressive nastiness have ever done anything to deserve such treatment from you.  

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The Israeli/Palestine issue is not a deciding factor in Quebec at all. 82% of Quebecers are done with the sovereignty issue. Quebecers are focused on the same things the rest of the country is focused on: inequality(the economy), the environment, and immigration. 

Would it be such a terrible thing for the NDP to have this position:  "We recognize that Quebec has the right to self-determination; at the same time we hope Quebec will remain both a nation AND a vital component of Canada and will work with all out might to persuade the people of Quebec to always so remain"?  Would that be impossible for you to live with?  It's not as though sovereigntism is a thing that has to be defeated.  It's enough that it be...well, just put aside.

I don't think they need to go that far. Just ignore the topic and don't pander. The Conservatives are pandering by pushing for federal taxes to be done by Quebec. Pandering to Legault that is, not the people of Quebec. 

JeffWells

Svend's right, and is owed a few apologies himself.

“Nanaimo byelection is wake-up call to federal NDP,” Robinson wrote. “Apology owed to for shameful treatment in 2015. And we must as party take clear stand opposing fracking and all new oil-and-gas infrastructure including LNG, and Site C, champion UNDRIP + Pact for Green New Deal.”

https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/svend-robinson-pushes-federal-ndp...

pietro_bcc

Pondering wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The Israeli/Palestine issue is not a deciding factor in Quebec at all. 82% of Quebecers are done with the sovereignty issue. Quebecers are focused on the same things the rest of the country is focused on: inequality(the economy), the environment, and immigration. 

Would it be such a terrible thing for the NDP to have this position:  "We recognize that Quebec has the right to self-determination; at the same time we hope Quebec will remain both a nation AND a vital component of Canada and will work with all out might to persuade the people of Quebec to always so remain"?  Would that be impossible for you to live with?  It's not as though sovereigntism is a thing that has to be defeated.  It's enough that it be...well, just put aside.

I don't think they need to go that far. Just ignore the topic and don't pander. The Conservatives are pandering by pushing for federal taxes to be done by Quebec. Pandering to Legault that is, not the people of Quebec. 

I mean its not really pandering, its a basic concept of efficiency. Having to send forms to 2 separate tax collection agencies is inefficient. I would personally prefer disbanding Revenue Quebec, but this is also a better solution than the status quo. And by the way, the NDP supports the exact same policy.

jerrym

The day afte the by election, Trudeau said that what it showed is that a majority of the population is worried about climate change. You can bet that the Liberals are going to run on that, which makes them vunerable to an attack on climate change for being hypocrites for saying climate change is the problem but buying and develping pipelines, as well as for adapting Harper's greenhouse gas emissions standards after being elected in 2015. 

This provides the NDP an opening in terms of presenting a strong left platform based on climate change and a Green New Deal. The NDP needs to offer a program of large greenhouse gas emission reductions in the short term and to near zero in the long term. By coupling this with a transition employment strategy that promotes shifting towards investment in renewable energy jobs that triple employment on average compared to investment of equal amounts in the fossil fuel sector, introducing a full pharmacare and daycare program, funding Indigenous education, health, and training programs at a minimum of the average of provincial levels, as well as other social programs, the NDP can keep from being outflanked, as in 2015, by Liberal campaign planks that are well-marketed but pale in comparison to a true Green New Deal program.  

 

Transit Rocks It. (Click Here To Enlarge.)

https://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/20/over-3-times-more-green-jobs-per-mi...

contrarianna

Martin N. wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
The NDP refused to change from their dated ideology and the Greens will simply eclipse them, replace them and render them irrelevant. No one wants to listen to NDP grievancemongers preaching to the choir. Younger generations want action on their priorities.

A classic mistake of attempting to force your product on the buyer rather than changing to products to suit demand. The NDP is stale-dated and about to be flushed by the Greens.

I'm curious about your logic in that post. The Greens agree with the climate change panic that you have repeatedly derided, and are also steadfast in their disapproval of any pipelines to the west coast and fracking and LNG in British Columbia. They are also supportive of the carbon tax. All of these are positions you have used to attack your version of the left.

There is not a shred of logical or ethical consistency in that the relentless tar sands and tanker shill Marqtin N. would advocate the Greens over the NDP.

But be not puzzled, these are the cynical machinations seen with our undemocratic first-past-the-post system (which of course he also supports, along with the fossil fuel industry).

The unvoiced consistency of his absurd contradictions is a desire to promote a win for the more avid climate destroyers by dividing support in the potentially less destructive parties. 

Karl Nuerenberg shows this apprehension in his article:

Paul Manly's Green victory is personal vindication and sends a message on climate change

....Good for Andrew Scheer's Conservatives?

Those who are, mostly, terrified that our first-past-the-post electoral system could deliver a cheap victory to Andrew Scheer's climate-change-denying Conservatives next time will worry about what the Nanaimo-Ladysmith results portend. With three parties, that at least rhetorically [emphasis mine] recognize the reality of the climate crisis, splitting the progressive vote, the let's-make-gas-cheaper-and-build-more-pipelines Conservatives could slip into power....

http://rabble.ca/news/2019/05/paul-manlys-green-victory-personal-vindica...

Fear not, the anxious NDP hysteric contrarianna has missed the point entirely. Your humble tar sands and tanker shill is merely positing that Nanaimo riding voters are not content with stodgy NDP policy in this byelection.

There is a certain incoherence in the 'let's make fuel more expensive to save the planet' advocates when they discover that they cannot afford the cost of living increases associated with more expensive fuel. There are worse things than a Conservative government other than a Librano government, of course and that is the unintended consequences of bad policy.

It is soothing, however, that the extremist fringe of the NDP is still 'woke' with pitchforks close at hand in the necessity of a burning at the stake or shill pillorying.

You do show some consistency. 

Your initial lie that I'm NDP, or of any party for that matter, is as ridiculous as your pro-ecocidal lies.  I have voted for Green's May in my riding for several elections.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

JeffWells wrote:

Svend's right, and is owed a few apologies himself.

“Nanaimo byelection is wake-up call to federal NDP,” Robinson wrote. “Apology owed to for shameful treatment in 2015. And we must as party take clear stand opposing fracking and all new oil-and-gas infrastructure including LNG, and Site C, champion UNDRIP + Pact for Green New Deal.”

https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/svend-robinson-pushes-federal-ndp...

There is a reason that me and a lot of other people spent years ensuring the House had a voice that spoke about the environment and social justice. Svend was in the streets with Quebec activists in 2001 getting shot at and IMO it branded the NDP as a left alternative in the minds of Quebec activists. I believe that Svend and Libby gave the NDP its voice and played a major part in Jack's breakthrough in Quebec.

The party is attracting some good candidates and maybe this time they will run on the platform that they should have run on in 2015. Svend is an outspoken team player who might really help Jagmeet up his game. Like Sanders or Corbyn Robinson is the NDP's senior left wing politician who has always spoken truth to power. He might help convince the youth vote and more importantly the youth activist vote to support the NDP. We won a string of elections in Burnaby because first Svend and then Bill motivated activists and young people to step up and volunteer. 

Mighty Middle

BC Green Party Staffer just tweeted about the NDP

NDP: Greens are conservatives in disguise who hate working people.

Also NDP: We're basically the same party so why do Greens even exist?

Also also NDP: We're pro-fracking and logging old growth forests.

Also also also NDP: Why won't Greens give up and join us!?

https://twitter.com/ItsRyanClayton/status/1126276344084439040

pietro_bcc

Greens: We're an environmentalist party

Also Greens: We support extracting tar sands and building more refineries to expand refining capacity, locking us into the current rate of extraction for the life of those refineries.

Also also Greens: We're responsive to our membership and not party leadership

Also also also Greens: After our membership voted to support BDS, we reversed course because our leader pulled a fit.

brookmere

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Svend is an outspoken team player who might really help Jagmeet up his game.

In fact he's been taking positions at odds with Singh and the party, as noted right in this thread. Not that I think that's a bad thing mind you.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

brookmere wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Svend is an outspoken team player who might really help Jagmeet up his game.

In fact he's been taking positions at odds with Singh and the party, as noted right in this thread. Not that I think that's a bad thing mind you.

I think you will find most if not all of what he advocates has been passed at Conventions. But yes, you are correct that he is at odds with the narrow issues that the central party will allow MP's to focus on.

When I said he was a team player I was referring to him not taking Alexa to a final ballot and then in the next leadership backing Jack, both things he did to unite the party and move forward. He has always spoken his mind on issues and that IMO is the proper role for an MP and why I spent considerable amounts of my personal time and money to send him to Ottawa. When Jack disciplined Bill for voting against a Charter breaching Omnibus Crime bill I stopped giving the NDP any of my time or money. What would be the point of electing a politician that can't speak about the real issues. The BC NDP did not like the fact that Svend was arrested in the War in the Woods over old growth logging. By the way the BC NDP is making the same mistakes again surrounding clear cut blocks of old growth. Site C LFG and Old Growth logging are going to drive many supporters to the Greens.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Martin N. wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
The NDP refused to change from their dated ideology and the Greens will simply eclipse them, replace them and render them irrelevant. No one wants to listen to NDP grievancemongers preaching to the choir. Younger generations want action on their priorities.

A classic mistake of attempting to force your product on the buyer rather than changing to products to suit demand. The NDP is stale-dated and about to be flushed by the Greens.

I'm curious about your logic in that post. The Greens agree with the climate change panic that you have repeatedly derided, and are also steadfast in their disapproval of any pipelines to the west coast and fracking and LNG in British Columbia. They are also supportive of the carbon tax. All of these are positions you have used to attack your version of the left.

There is not a shred of logical or ethical consistency in that the relentless tar sands and tanker shill Marqtin N. would advocate the Greens over the NDP.

But be not puzzled, these are the cynical machinations seen with our undemocratic first-past-the-post system (which of course he also supports, along with the fossil fuel industry).

The unvoiced consistency of his absurd contradictions is a desire to promote a win for the more avid climate destroyers by dividing support in the potentially less destructive parties. 

Karl Nuerenberg shows this apprehension in his article:

Paul Manly's Green victory is personal vindication and sends a message on climate change

....Good for Andrew Scheer's Conservatives?

Those who are, mostly, terrified that our first-past-the-post electoral system could deliver a cheap victory to Andrew Scheer's climate-change-denying Conservatives next time will worry about what the Nanaimo-Ladysmith results portend. With three parties, that at least rhetorically [emphasis mine] recognize the reality of the climate crisis, splitting the progressive vote, the let's-make-gas-cheaper-and-build-more-pipelines Conservatives could slip into power....

http://rabble.ca/news/2019/05/paul-manlys-green-victory-personal-vindica...

Fear not, the anxious NDP hysteric contrarianna has missed the point entirely. Your humble tar sands and tanker shill is merely positing that Nanaimo riding voters are not content with stodgy NDP policy in this byelection.

There is a certain incoherence in the 'let's make fuel more expensive to save the planet' advocates when they discover that they cannot afford the cost of living increases associated with more expensive fuel. There are worse things than a Conservative government other than a Librano government, of course and that is the unintended consequences of bad policy.

It is soothing, however, that the extremist fringe of the NDP is still 'woke' with pitchforks close at hand in the necessity of a burning at the stake or shill pillorying.

The problem is, Martin, you are making the arguments you'd make if the CONS had taken Nanaimo-Ladysmith.  In truth, the Cons made only a trivial gain in their vote share.

There is no possible way the NDP would have gained from embracing client denialism and making a Notley-like push for pipelines.

Pondering

pietro_bcc wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The Israeli/Palestine issue is not a deciding factor in Quebec at all. 82% of Quebecers are done with the sovereignty issue. Quebecers are focused on the same things the rest of the country is focused on: inequality(the economy), the environment, and immigration. 

Would it be such a terrible thing for the NDP to have this position:  "We recognize that Quebec has the right to self-determination; at the same time we hope Quebec will remain both a nation AND a vital component of Canada and will work with all out might to persuade the people of Quebec to always so remain"?  Would that be impossible for you to live with?  It's not as though sovereigntism is a thing that has to be defeated.  It's enough that it be...well, just put aside.

I don't think they need to go that far. Just ignore the topic and don't pander. The Conservatives are pandering by pushing for federal taxes to be done by Quebec. Pandering to Legault that is, not the people of Quebec. 

I mean its not really pandering, its a basic concept of efficiency. Having to send forms to 2 separate tax collection agencies is inefficient. I would personally prefer disbanding Revenue Quebec, but this is also a better solution than the status quo. And by the way, the NDP supports the exact same policy.

Then the NDP continues to be stupid on Quebec. The federal government does the provincial taxes for many provinces in Canada. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The Quebec provincial government is a joke that practically had an official system for corruption so bad that we were overpaying by 30% on construction and still getting shoddy work. If the Quebec government can prove they can manage what they already have control over I'll consider it. 

Quebecers couldn't care less about this. It is infuriating that the majority of us say no to sovereignty association and yes to federalism and get ignored. 

I think PR for Quebec would be a good thing but this is another topic pushed by politicians not by people. Nobody other than politicians is pushing for Quebec to process federal taxes. 

All of the parties, NDP, Liberals, Conservatives, seem determined to ignore what the 99% want in favor of their own pet projects. You wonder why voters are cynical? 

I am willing to bet that the grand majority of federal Green votes are single issue. It is people who care about the environment and see that none of the federal parties are seriously committed to a green new deal. Trudeau was right that the economy and environment go hand in hand.  We won't know how serious the NDP will be about actually delivering on that until we see the platform. If the NDP comes out with a credible plan at least as green as the Greens there is no reason why they can't take those votes. 

Debater

Greens are racing NDP to the climate-change punch

By Chantal Hébert

Fri., May 10, 2019

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/05/10/greens-are-racing-ndp-to-the-climate-change-punch.html

swallow swallow's picture

The NDP no longer supports a single tax return run by Revenue Quebec. 

Pondering

Debater wrote:

Greens are racing NDP to the climate-change punch

By Chantal Hébert

Fri., May 10, 2019

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/05/10/greens-are-racing-ndp-to-the-climate-change-punch.html

The last sentence is the most important. 

The NDP can only hope that its survival as a vital force in the next House of Commons does not depend on it beating the Greens to the climate-change punch next fall.

We won't know if they are going to do enough until next fall. It isn't a race to see who gets their policy out first. 

Thanks swallow, good to know. 

pietro_bcc

swallow wrote:

The NDP no longer supports a single tax return run by Revenue Quebec. 

Do you have specifics on this? I tried checking in the NDP Policy Book on the NDP site but it brings up a 404 error (good job NDP). I never heard that the NDP backed off this position and can't find any media coverage of this.

Pondering

jerrym wrote:

The day afte the by election, Trudeau said that what it showed is that a majority of the population is worried about climate change. You can bet that the Liberals are going to run on that, which makes them vunerable to an attack on climate change for being hypocrites for saying climate change is the problem but buying and develping pipelines, as well as for adapting Harper's greenhouse gas emissions standards after being elected in 2015. 

This provides the NDP an opening in terms of presenting a strong left platform based on climate change and a Green New Deal. The NDP needs to offer a program of large greenhouse gas emission reductions in the short term and to near zero in the long term. By coupling this with a transition employment strategy that promotes shifting towards investment in renewable energy jobs that triple employment on average compared to investment of equal amounts in the fossil fuel sector, introducing a full pharmacare and daycare program, funding Indigenous education, health, and training programs at a minimum of the average of provincial levels, as well as other social programs, the NDP can keep from being outflanked, as in 2015, by Liberal campaign planks that are well-marketed but pale in comparison to a true Green New Deal program.  

 

Transit Rocks It. (Click Here To Enlarge.)

https://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/20/over-3-times-more-green-jobs-per-mi...

I agree with every word and it bears repeating. 

swallow swallow's picture

Reported in Le Devoir a few months ago.

pietro_bcc wrote:

swallow wrote:

The NDP no longer supports a single tax return run by Revenue Quebec. 

Do you have specifics on this? I tried checking in the NDP Policy Book on the NDP site but it brings up a 404 error (good job NDP). I never heard that the NDP backed off this position and can't find any media coverage of this.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

swallow wrote:

Reported in Le Devoir a few months ago.

pietro_bcc wrote:

swallow wrote:

The NDP no longer supports a single tax return run by Revenue Quebec. 

Do you have specifics on this? I tried checking in the NDP Policy Book on the NDP site but it brings up a 404 error (good job NDP). I never heard that the NDP backed off this position and can't find any media coverage of this.

I just filled in my Income Tax form on U-File and it was only one form and then it generated the numbers for both the federal and BC taxes and benefits etc.  Does any province have a system that requires filling out a separate form? No matter who gets to collect the tax it must still be allocated according to a preset formula determined by both the federal and applicable provincial government. So is the policy only about which government gets to collect the tax for the other?

cco

Québec has a separate form. Every year there's much wailing and gnashing of teeth about this, both from die-hard sovereigntists who don't think Canada should be getting any taxes from Québec and die-hard Montreal Gazette angryphones who think Québec should be annexed by Ontario (again). The rest of us spend an extra few minutes filling it out and forget about it until the next year.

Pondering

cco wrote:
Québec has a separate form. Every year there's much wailing and gnashing of teeth about this, both from die-hard sovereigntists who don't think Canada should be getting any taxes from Québec and die-hard Montreal Gazette angryphones who think Québec should be annexed by Ontario (again). The rest of us spend an extra few minutes filling it out and forget about it until the next year.

Sounds about right. Leave well enough alone. We have real problems to deal with.

pietro_bcc

cco wrote:
Québec has a separate form. Every year there's much wailing and gnashing of teeth about this, both from die-hard sovereigntists who don't think Canada should be getting any taxes from Québec and die-hard Montreal Gazette angryphones who think Québec should be annexed by Ontario (again). The rest of us spend an extra few minutes filling it out and forget about it until the next year.

The most credible estimates regarding how much money we waste by having 2 tax collection agencies collect taxes is approximately 600 million dollars per year. 600 million that can be spent on healthcare or education is wasted on what amounts to a make work project.

As I stated I would prefer disbanding Revenue Quebec because that would save more money, but would be also fine with Revenue Quebec taking over the federal part as an improvement on the status quo.

But having 2 tax collection agencies collect our taxes because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings is pure idiocy.

Pondering

It would probably cost many millions if not a billion for Revenue Quebec to take over processing of federal taxes. New buildings, new computers, new staff, new managers, consultants, why would you want to waste all that money? Currently the system works. If you want to shut down Revenue Quebec I am fine with that because that would save money because the federal system is already set up to handle provincial returns. 

Taking taxation out of the hands of Revenue Canada will not result in closing offices. Revenue Canada would need a whole new system and new offices too in order to make sure Quebec was doing it right.

The idea makes no sense as anything other than a ploy as a step towards independence. 

swallow swallow's picture

Most US states have theirm own tax return alongide the federal tax return. The end of the world, it isn't.

brookmere

swallow wrote:

Most US states have theirm own tax return alongide the federal tax return. The end of the world, it isn't.

And no federal politician has ever advocated handing over collection of US federal income taxes to any state. It would be regarded as crazy and rightly so. One of the rare occasions where our politicians are nuttier than their counterparts south of the border.

MegB

Hey, y'all got a mention in iPolitics here. You were quoted Ken. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

MegB wrote:

Hey, y'all got a mention in iPolitics here. You were quoted Ken. 

Thanks, Meg.

WWWTT

Kudos for you Ken Burch!

Pages