Author Topic Options



PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:28 am
 


[QUOTE BY= Ed King] On a lighter note, did anyone see the Bloc Québécois of Ontario website ? It's hilarious! I love the slogan "Our Quebec includes Ontario"! It's worth reading for humour's sake. Check out the sections for the Québécisation of Ontario and Association-Sovereignty and the frequently asked questions.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Envoie-moi le lien. <br /> <br />


Offline

Vive Moderator


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5450
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:16 pm
 


[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] <br />Dear doctor, your talk comes straight out of the 1970s. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Wonderful, but the statistics to which I gave links to are current to last month. <br /> <br />[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] <br />When you say it has to whether increase taxes or cut spending, I think it can do well just by rapatriating the taxes it sends to Ottawa. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Perhaps you don't know much about accounting, but the balance sheet for Quebec in my post above is quite clear. Quebec earns 76 billion dollars annualy, and spends 80.2 billion dollars annually. The difference is made up in tranfer payments. The taxes Quebec sends to Ottawa get returned, plus the difference to cover excess spending. <br /> <br />[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] <br />Freeing this money will allow for better health care services and economic development. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />You can't free what isn't there. <br /> <br />[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] <br />QUEBEC DOESN`T WANT TO STAY IN A SITUATION WHERE IT GETS EQUALIZATION MONEY! <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />So what is stopping you? Right now I mean. Alberta went from a have-not to a have province in less than 50 years. Quebec has had 200 years. <br /> <br />Do you think that separating will somehow give Quebec 4 billion dollars per year, plus 6.8 billion dollars to service it's debt yearly? <br /> <br />Just because there are cheques in the chequebook, doesn't mean there is money in the account . . . <br />



Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? - Frank Zappa





PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:12 pm
 


[QUOTE]Dear doctor, your talk comes straight out of the 1970s. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Wonderful, but the statistics to which I gave links to are current to last month.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />I never questioned these figures. What I was refering to was the scare campaign of the 1970s. <br /> <br />When you say it has to whether increase taxes or cut spending, I think it can do well just by rapatriating the taxes it sends to Ottawa. <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Perhaps you don't know much about accounting, but the balance sheet for Quebec in my post above is quite clear. Quebec earns 76 billion dollars annualy, and spends 80.2 billion dollars annually. The difference is made up in tranfer payments. The taxes Quebec sends to Ottawa get returned, plus the difference to cover excess spending.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Now don`t make me look like a fool, when it is you who`s not listening. <br /> <br />I will repeat it loud and clear : <u>WHAT QUEBEC IS EARNING NOW IS LOWER TO WHAT IT WILL EARN WHEN IT RAPATRIATES ITS TAXES, BECAUSE THE FREEING OF THIS MONEY WILL BE USED TO BOOST ITS ECONOMY, WHICH IN TURN WILL BROADEN THE TAX BASE</u>. Quebec is not earning its full potential. Hopefully, it will be earning more than what it will be spending. Adjustments might have to be made, but this is better than the status quo. rograms. Do you want me to repeat in French, in Chinese or in sign language? <br /> <br />QUEBEC DOESN`T WANT TO STAY IN A SITUATION WHERE IT GETS EQUALIZATION MONEY! <br /> <br />[QUOTE]So what is stopping you? Right now I mean. Alberta went from a have-not to a have province in less than 50 years. Quebec has had 200 years. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />What is stopping us? Sovereignty! <br /> <br />FYI, when lower and upper Canada were annexed, lower Canada had a surplus and it had to pay for upper Canada`s debt. <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Do you think that separating will somehow give Quebec 4 billion dollars per year, plus 6.8 billion dollars to service it's debt yearly?[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />It`s worth trying. <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Just because there are cheques in the chequebook, doesn't mean there is money in the account [/QUOTE] <br />...and the balance of your checking account won`t be pretty after we leave. <br />


Offline

Junior Member

Profile
Posts: 92
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:27 pm
 


[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] [QUOTE BY= Ed King] On a lighter note, did anyone see the Bloc Québécois of Ontario website ? It's hilarious! I love the slogan "Our Quebec includes Ontario"! It's worth reading for humour's sake. Check out the sections for the Québécisation of Ontario and Association-Sovereignty and the frequently asked questions.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Envoie-moi le lien. <br /> <br />[/QUOTE]My mistake, I accidentally deleted iy while editing my message. Here: http://demaisonneuve.com/bloc/bienvenue.html


Offline

Vive Moderator


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5450
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:19 pm
 


[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] <br />When you say it has to whether increase taxes or cut spending, I think it can do well just by rapatriating the taxes it sends to Ottawa. <br /> <br />I will repeat it loud and clear : <u>WHAT QUEBEC IS EARNING NOW IS LOWER TO WHAT IT WILL EARN WHEN IT RAPATRIATES ITS TAXES, BECAUSE THE FREEING OF THIS MONEY WILL BE USED TO BOOST ITS ECONOMY, WHICH IN TURN WILL BROADEN THE TAX BASE</u>. <br /> <br />Do you want me to repeat in French, in Chinese or in sign language? <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Repeat it in any language you want, <b>all the answers to my questions are in that balance sheet</b>. The income from various sources, including the taxes Quebec sends to Ottawa are included in the 'Revenues' section. Repatriation of tax dollars will not change those figures. Quebec will still operate at a net loss of <b>8 billion dollars per year</b>. <br /> <br />And lay off the caps loc key, would ya? <br /> <br />[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] <br />What is stopping us? Sovereignty! <br /> <br />...and the balance of your checking account won`t be pretty after we leave. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Alberta has exactally the same soverenty over it's provincial budget as Quebec does. Being an Albertan, my chequebook will be much better off once Quebec balances it's budget. <br /> <br />"But why does he keep picking on me" you're thinking. <br /> <br />[QUOTE BY= Samuel] [QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb]I think you're taking a lesson from Samuel on 'How to avoid a direct question'[/QUOTE] <br />Beware Delenda, some people will obssess over their questions until they get nothing less or more than the answers they've imagined.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Samuel was almost right here. I don't usually ask questions I don't know the answers to, especially when it comes to Quebec Separatists. I learn far more about your 'cause' by watching you avoid the issues and regurgitate the same old rhetoric, rather than actually answering the question. What you don't say says far more than the answers you've been programmed to recite. And one thing they do say is that you have been programmed to recite them. <br /> <br />As above, I just wanted to see if you would read the facts on the Finance Canada website, or if you would just regurgitate the same speutum that seperatists have been since the 1970's. Or if they came up with something new and original. <br /> <br />So after 50 pages or so on the subject, what have we learned? <br /> <br />Very little. Same old re-hashed edited and skewed history, same old rosy economic outlook and promises for a better future when the facts do not lend themself to that future. I've provided facts to prove my point. You retailiate with "Help! Help! We're repressed and a conquered people!" Montcalm lost, Wolfe won on that farm owned by a relative of the Prime Ministers'. It's been nearly 300 years. Get over it. <br /> <br />I understand your frustration a little more, but I do not see your solution as any better for you or the rest of Canada than your current one. <br />



Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? - Frank Zappa





PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:13 pm
 


doctor <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Repeat it in any language you want, <b>all the answers to my questions are in that balance sheet</b>. The income from various sources, including the taxes Quebec sends to Ottawa are included in the 'Revenues' section. Repatriation of tax dollars will not change those figures. Quebec will still operate at a net loss of <b>8 billion dollars per year</b>.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />You underestimate us. We have been able to work miracles with what`s left of our taxes. QUEBEC WILL NOT OPERATE AT A NET LOSS. You are not in a position to judge what we will be doing with that freed money. I don`t think we have any lessons to take from English Canada as to accountability and how to manage money. Look into your own backyard. The federal liberals are in no way an example of good management. John Roth and the other, Dunn, were not exactly examples of virtue. Conrad Black's empire is no reference either. <br /> <br />[QUOTE]And lay off the caps loc key, would ya?[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Tit for tat. I lay off the caps and you lay off the bold. <br /> <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Being an Albertan, my chequebook will be much better off once Quebec balances it's budget.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />I don`t think so. When Quebec balances its budget is when it will be sovereign. Right now, it is fiscally strangled. <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Samuel was almost right here. I don't usually ask questions I don't know the answers to, especially when it comes to Quebec Separatists. I learn far more about your 'cause' by watching you avoid the issues and regurgitate the same old rhetoric, rather than actually answering the question.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Because I didn`t give you the answer you wanted to hear, Samuel is right. <br /> <br />[QUOTE]What you don't say says far more than the answers you've been programmed to recite. <br /> <br />And one thing they do say is that you have been programmed to recite them.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />You`re implying that we can`t think. And that is very condescending and mean. I know the ROC far more than you will ever know Quebec. And Quebeckers will be free to think what is good for them, regardless of whether it goes against federal propaganda. <br /> <br />[QUOTE]As above, I just wanted to see if you would read the facts on the Finance Canada website, or if you would just regurgitate the same speutum that seperatists have been since the 1970's.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Go read the facts on Vigile.net and we can discuss after. <br /> <br /> <br />[QUOTE] So after 50 pages or so on the subject, what have we learned?[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />That the federal propaganda is not going to disappear anytime soon. <br /> <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Very little. Same old re-hashed edited and skewed history, same old rosy economic outlook and promises for a better future when the facts do not lend themself to that future.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />You don`t know about the facts in the future. What are you, Mandrake the magician? I think you`re scared to death to lose Quebec, and you cannot even imagine that we`re able to go by ourselves. <br /> <br />[QUOTE]You retailiate with "Help! Help! We're repressed and a conquered people!" Montcalm lost, Wolfe won on that farm owned by a relative of the Prime Ministers'. It's been nearly 300 years.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />But we`ll win the next time. Is it only you that has the right to win? Is it only you that sets the rules? <br /> <br /> <br />[QUOTE]I understand your frustration a little more, but I do not see your solution as any better for you or the rest of Canada than your current one.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />You don`t see a solution any better FOR THE REST OF CANADA than the current one. Leave the solution for Quebec with us. <br /> <br />


Offline

Forum Elite

Profile
Posts: 1870
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:35 pm
 


There is no point in talking about economic considerations as reasons for Quebec not separating. As you will notice, transfer payments have been decreasing from the federal government in the past decade and there is little indication that that will change. As far as not 'making it on their own' that is an almost ridiculous assumption. Take a country like Norway, which has a much smaller population, higher standards of living, less unemployment and poverty, and fewer natural resources and they have NO debt. It all depends how you manage your resources and how you distribute income. Quebec has always had a far more equitable society than the rest of Canada, just as France's 35 work week and multiple labour associations make Great Britain look like a gulag in comparison. <br /> English Canada has had many years to take Quebec's concerns seriously, it's not Quebec's fault that few other places in Canada have the balls to stand up to the federal government.


Offline

Forum Super Elite

Profile
Posts: 2599
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:42 pm
 


[QUOTE BY= Delenda Carthago] [QUOTE]Dear doctor, your talk comes straight out of the 1970s. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Wonderful, but the statistics to which I gave links to are current to last month.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />I never questioned these figures. What I was refering to was the scare campaign of the 1970s. <br /> <br />When you say it has to whether increase taxes or cut spending, I think it can do well just by rapatriating the taxes it sends to Ottawa. <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Perhaps you don't know much about accounting, but the balance sheet for Quebec in my post above is quite clear. Quebec earns 76 billion dollars annualy, and spends 80.2 billion dollars annually. The difference is made up in tranfer payments. The taxes Quebec sends to Ottawa get returned, plus the difference to cover excess spending.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Now don`t make me look like a fool, when it is you who`s not listening. <br /> <br />I will repeat it loud and clear : <u>WHAT QUEBEC IS EARNING NOW IS LOWER TO WHAT IT WILL EARN WHEN IT RAPATRIATES ITS TAXES, BECAUSE THE FREEING OF THIS MONEY WILL BE USED TO BOOST ITS ECONOMY, WHICH IN TURN WILL BROADEN THE TAX BASE</u>. Quebec is not earning its full potential. Hopefully, it will be earning more than what it will be spending. Adjustments might have to be made, but this is better than the status quo. rograms. Do you want me to repeat in French, in Chinese or in sign language? <br /> <br />QUEBEC DOESN`T WANT TO STAY IN A SITUATION WHERE IT GETS EQUALIZATION MONEY! <br /> <br />[QUOTE]So what is stopping you? Right now I mean. Alberta went from a have-not to a have province in less than 50 years. Quebec has had 200 years. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />What is stopping us? Sovereignty! <br /> <br />FYI, when lower and upper Canada were annexed, lower Canada had a surplus and it had to pay for upper Canada`s debt. <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Do you think that separating will somehow give Quebec 4 billion dollars per year, plus 6.8 billion dollars to service it's debt yearly?[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />It`s worth trying. <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Just because there are cheques in the chequebook, doesn't mean there is money in the account [/QUOTE] <br />...and the balance of your checking account won`t be pretty after we leave. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Delenda, separation is not something oyu "try." You talk about it like you are "trying redwine." There's no guarantee you coudl ever go back. <br /> <br />You've clearly learned nothing--I'm now on board with Dr. Caleb, I should avoid saying much. I shouldn't be wasting my breath arguing these same old BS arguments. I'm out.



"True nations are united by blood and soil, language, literature, history, faith, tradition and memory". -

-Patrick J. Buchanan


Offline

Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 516
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:03 pm
 


Norway has no debt? <br /> <br />And doesn't Quebec already keep it's taxes because when I look at my paycheck at work it has a special place for Quebec tax.





PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:12 pm
 


PERTURBED <br /> <br /> <br />[QUOTE]Delenda, separation is not something oyu "try." You talk about it like you are "trying redwine." There's no guarantee you coudl ever go back.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />You tell that to the many countries that got their independence since WW2. I admit it is scary to step into the unknown. My choice of word might not have been the best, but I guess you get the idea. None of these countries have ever wanted to go back. <br /> <br />Say Hi to Dr.Caleb for me. <br /> <br /> <br />





PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:13 pm
 


[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] There is no point in talking about economic considerations as reasons for Quebec not separating. As you will notice, transfer payments have been decreasing from the federal government in the past decade and there is little indication that that will change. As far as not 'making it on their own' that is an almost ridiculous assumption. Take a country like Norway, which has a much smaller population, higher standards of living, less unemployment and poverty, and fewer natural resources and they have NO debt. It all depends how you manage your resources and how you distribute income. Quebec has always had a far more equitable society than the rest of Canada, just as France's 35 work week and multiple labour associations make Great Britain look like a gulag in comparison. <br /> English Canada has had many years to take Quebec's concerns seriously, it's not Quebec's fault that few other places in Canada have the balls to stand up to the federal government. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>


Offline

Forum Elite

Profile
Posts: 1870
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:13 pm
 


Norway has no debt, and for an even more poignant example, neither does Leichtenstein. There are also many who have very small debt charges. You'll note that debt is a misleading concept, in many places, such as the third world, it's never the people who get that money. It's fairly routine for the governing leaders to line their pockets and charge their debt 'to their country'. I think there should be serious discussions about how much is actually 'owed' by people, of course, not too many lenders have that on their agenda.





PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:20 pm
 


<br /> <br />For those of you who understand French, here is a study done by 2 researchers at Harvard. <br /> <br />Economically speaking, an independent Quebec would be very well viable. <br /> <br /> <br />"Sur le plan économique, le Québec pourrait devenir indépendant, affirment deux chercheurs de Harvard <br />Raymond Giroux <br />Le Soleil samedi 13 novembre 2004 <br /> <br />Ottawa - Grâce au libre-échange, l'argument économique contre le souveraineté du Québec ne ferait pas le poids dans un nouveau référendum, soutient le directeur du département d'économie de l'Université Harvard, Alberto Alesina. <br /> <br />"Le fait de participer à une vaste zone de libre-échange permet aux pays de prospérer, à la condition évidente de demeurer très ouverts aux autres économies, dit-il en entrevue au SOLEIL. Ce contexte enlève de la pression au Québec, dans le cadre de l'ALENA." <br /> <br />"Sur un plan strictement économique, soutient M. Alesina, il ne serait pas tellement difficile pour le Québec de devenir indépendant. Cela peut se faire à un coût très bas pour tout le monde et je ne vois pas pourquoi il ne réussirait pas. <br /> <br />"La décision est strictement politique et si le Québec veut se séparer pour des raisons linguistiques, par exemple, l'économie ne sera pas un facteur dans la décision, dit-il. <br /> <br />"Des petits pays comme le Danemark, l'Islande ou Singapour sont prospères parce qu'ils ont une économie ouverte, ajoute le professeur. Il n'y a aucune raison pour qu'un petit pays ne réussisse pas." <br /> <br />Coauteur d'un ouvrage intitulé The Size of Nations, M. Alesina dit s'être intéressé à la question de la taille des pays dans le contexte du démantèlement de l'Union soviétique et du développement croissant des régionalismes dans l'Union européenne, le tout dans le cadre de la mondialisation de l'économie. <br /> <br />Équations savantes à l'appui, M. Alesina et son collègue Enrico Spolaore ont développé des modèles économiques (tout aussi complexes que la formule de péréquation) qui leur permettent de conclure que des petits pays peuvent se révéler en théorie plus efficaces que de grands États hétérogènes. <br /> <br />"Il y aura certainement un moment où le Québec et le Canada devront décider s'ils veulent demeurer ensemble une fois dépassé le sommet de la courbe de rentabilité de la vie commune", dit-il. <br /> <br />Les deux économistes écrivent d'ailleurs qu'il "faut s'attendre à ce que la possibilité de l'accession du Québec à l'indépendance s'accroisse" à la suite de son intégration économique au reste du continent. <br /> <br />Même s'il y a toujours des coûts assortis à la création de nouveaux pays et à l'ajout de frontières, comme il l'écrit, M. Alesina n'y voit rien d'insurmontable dans le cas du Québec, à la condition qu'il demeure membre de l'ALENA. <br /> <br />La seul inconnue dans ses équations, admet-il, est le poids de ce que les économistes appellent "l'effet frontière", le résultat étant la prééminence au Canada du commerce interprovincial sur le commerce international malgré les distances, alors que la géographie devrait normalement imposer le contraire, soit un axe nord-sud. <br /> <br />Déjà cet "effet frontière" a nettement diminué depuis la signature du traité de libre-échange avec les États-Unis, mais l'économiste n'a aucun moyen de prévoir l'impact de la souveraineté sur ce volet du dossier, sinon pour le qualifier de peu important. "Ce serait là le seul coût réel de l'indépendance du Québec", dit-il. <br /> <br />Le reste du Canada, par ailleurs, ne souffrirait pas plus que le Québec d'une rupture, au plan économique, si elle se fait dans la paix et la coopération. <br /> <br />Le départ du Québec causerait cependant un "vide" entre l'Ontario et les provinces atlantiques dont il ne peut juger les conséquences. Cette situation, affirme-t-il, a donné un poids supplémentaire au Québec au fil des ans. Si le Québec se trouvait géographiquement à une extrémité du pays, il serait possiblement déjà souverain. <br /> <br />Si la question du déséquilibre fiscal entraîne par ailleurs des effets pervers, croit l'économiste, il estime qu'il n'y a pas de solution parfaite à ce problème. <br /> <br />Idéalement, chaque niveau de gouvernement devrait percevoir les impôts nécessaires pour tenir ses responsabilités, mais une telle solution ne permettrait plus de soutenir les provinces les plus pauvres par la péréquation, dit-il. <br /> <br />Alberto Alesina et Enrico Spolaore, The Size of Nations, publié au Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 262 pages. <br /> <br />RGiroux@lesoleil.com <br />


Offline

Forum Elite

Profile
Posts: 1035
PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:51 pm
 


self censored



« Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d´être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron





PostPosted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:03 pm
 


Here is an article in The Gazette by Don McPherson. <br /> <br />"Sovereignty debate claims new casualty <br />DON MACPHERSON <br />The Montréal Gazette November 16, 2004 Tuesday <br /> <br />Recent polls put support for sovereignty at just under 50 per cent. They have sovereignist parties leading in popularity at both the federal and provincial levels. Half of the province's elected representatives in Ottawa and Quebec City combined are sovereignists. <br /> <br />So it's clear the death notices for the sovereignty movement that appeared in English Canada after the election of a federalist government in Quebec last year were premature. And nine years after the last referendum, the sovereignty question is still a divisive and paralyzing force in Quebec politics. <br /> <br />The opposition Parti Quebecois is well on the way to polarizing the next provincial election on the question, at the expense of health, education, the environment, taxes, public finances and the role of government. It will do this by making sovereignty the main, if not the only plank in its platform, whether the electorate is ready or not. <br /> <br />And on the weekend, the sovereignty question almost destroyed a new left-wing movement at its founding meeting. <br /> <br />Option citoyenne is one of several small groups seeking to fill what they perceive to be a void on the left end of the spectrum created by the rightward shift of the two main parties in recent years. <br /> <br />Most of their supporters formerly supported the PQ and are nationalists. But they tend to see sovereignty not as the PQ does, as an end in itself, but rather as a means to the full achievement of their goals. And they emphasize social issues over the constitutional one. <br /> <br />Option citoyenne survived the weekend only by postponing taking a position on the sovereignty question for a year, though it is not clear what its members expect to learn during that period that they don't already know. Some impatient sovereignists immediately walked out. <br /> <br />The movement's co-ordinating committee, led by prominent feminist Francoise David, had proposed that Option citoyenne endorse sovereignty as being necessary to achieve its social project. But it soon realized many of the 300 members at the meeting in Quebec City didn't see it that way. <br /> <br />Some thought the sovereignist label would obscure the movement's social program and alienate potential sympathizers who are not sovereignists, especially nonfrancophones. <br /> <br />David said a movement such as Option citoyenne that wants to become a party has no choice but to take a position on sovereignty. But the committee realized it did not have the support of a consensus and retreated, withdrawing its proposal in favour of having members spend the next year discussing it. <br /> <br />David gave an indication of how divided the members were when she said, "It would have been a lot worse if we had forced a vote and ended up adopting it with 52-per-cent support." <br /> <br />The uncertainty could jeopardize Option citoyenne's proposed merger with an existing left-wing party, the Union des forces progressistes, which is already on record as favouring sovereignty. A third left-wing party, the environmentalist Green Party, is remaining independent but says it is open to co-operate with the others. <br /> <br />If the left remains divided, then the PQ will be pleased. Since it lost a 2001 by-election partly because it lost votes to a left-wing candidate, the PQ has been worried about a threat from the left. It has tried to keep left-wing voters in line by warning them that splitting the progressive vote helps elect a right-of-centre government. <br /> <br />In last year's election, PQ defeats in four close races could be attributed to the progressive vote - that is, the PQ candidates lost by fewer votes than went to the candidates for the left-wing parties. <br /> <br />But those parties are still a long way from winning seats of their own and having more impact than occasionally playing a spoiler's role in a riding where the numbers break just right. <br /> <br />Neither the UFP nor the Green Party was able to field a full slate of candidates in the last election, and those they did run received an average of only a little more than 500 votes. <br /> <br />And while the Charest government is considering reforming the electoral system for the election after next, the kind of changes it is considering would not have given the left-wing parties any seats in the last one. <br /> <br />


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Vive Le Canada.ca. Powered by © phpBB.