NS NDP stalwart quits, denounces Dexter

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
West Coast Lefty
NS NDP stalwart quits, denounces Dexter

Former NS NDP treasurer Pamela Harrison has quit the party and has blasted the Dexter government as being unresponsive to social justice issues.

Quote:

I believed that the party's stated vision of 'a better deal for today's families' actually included those with mental health concerns, lesser ability in the areas of both physical and mental health, single moms and their children, the homeless and women experiencing violence and abuse in their lives," she wrote in an opinion piece submitted to The Chronicle Herald.

"Wrong again . . . and how foolish I feel, to have imagined that the hundreds of resolutions passed at provincial council were actually more than an exercise in the creation of 'NDP Believers.' "

Harrison, a long-time social activist focusing on women's issues, said in an interview that she saw the same lack of decorum in the legislature last fall as with past governments, and criticized the government for looking at raising the harmonized sales tax.

"That is the most regressive tax that anybody could put on the citizens of Nova Scotia, and those who have the least will be impacted the most by that tax," she said.

 

I read the whole letter and I was confused by it - the emphasis seemed more on the governing style of the Dexter government, rather than any specific policy concern per se. Any NS babblers in particular provide some context or analysis for this attack from within the ranks?

For my part, I was dismayed by the NSNDP campaign promise to balance the budget in one year and not raise taxes, and I am very glad the Dexter government has reneged on those reckless and right-wing commitments.

KenS

Pamela Harrison and I would both be essentially aliented from the Dexter led NS NDP for the same several years by the time of the decisive victory last summer.  

When I read the letter, I see only policy direction concerns... I don't really see where WCL reads it as not whether that is the concern, or it's about 'governing style'.  

Like me, Pamela probably did not expect a lot out of this government. Where we would apparently differ, is that since they have been governing, I've seen enough that I like, that they at least have my qualified support.  

That may have a lot to do with my greatest concern being environmental issues. That is what I actually spend my time on. The Cabinet choices and other initial indicators did not encourage me at all, and I was more outspoken about that than people I work with who had no particular or strong connection to the NDP.  

But the government has been quick and decisive, and is moving in directions where it is going that are going to lead to things like higher electricity costs.. places the previous government balked at going and I didn't expect this one to be eny different.  

So that understandably puts a different light on the government than someone like Pamela who works every day on social justice issues.  

To wit- if they never do anything on those files, I won't be pleased either. But now I'm more willing to wait and see.  

[Some useful context: it takes time for a government what it wants to actually DO on any file. On environmental, energy use, and climate change issues the background work was done... the previous government just did not have the will to proceeed. What to do about social issues is not rocket science, but a government that speaks about what it wants to do before it does the extensive research about capabilities and readiness, will pay a steep price for speaking too soon. And this outfit is definitely cautious- even when they are 'doing the right thing.']

West Coast Lefty

That's good context, KenS.  I too am focused on environmental and climate change/energy issues, and have been very pleased at what I've seen so far from Dexter on that front.  Removing the HST on electricity was a stupid promise but as you note, the price of electricity will be rising due to other policy measures.
My comment on process comes from this key quote from the full letter from Pamela Harrison:
Quote:
I had the simplistic idea that once a "good party" was elected, that party would understand and exemplify the difference between politics and governance, and that their claim of a government that would be open, transparent and accountable was actually a commitment, instead of simply campaign rhetoric.
I believed that the party's stated vision of "a better deal for today's families" actually included those with mental health concerns, lesser ability in the areas of both physical and mental health, single moms and their children, the homeless and women experiencing violence and abuse in their lives. Wrong again......and how foolish I feel, to have imagined that the hundreds of resolutions passed at provincial council were actually more that an exercise in the creation of "NDP Believers."
Let me be clear. I am not talking about money. I am referring to a deliberate decision to keep those of us who work (both voluntarily and for pay) in the social justice community, from experiencing a different kind of process, a process whereby up front clear communication is the rule, not the exception, and collaboration and negotiation are the norm. You promised this, again and again and again, and you did not deliver

So it's not about money or funding for a specific program, she doesn't reference any election commitment or policy direction per se - so I interpret the critique as focusing on lack of inclusion, transparency, due process, etc. These are crucial issues but I would have thought they would be linked to decisions not to increase welfare rates, cuts to programs, etc.
I'm just curious if there are particular Dexter decisions on social policy that would have led to this resignation.

KenS

I don't think its anything they've done, and would be what they have shown little indication of what they will do.

I may be wrong, but I interpret those general things of Pamela's that you quote, as essentially extensions of 'doing little or nothing'.

ottawaobserver

From a distance, it looked like she's written them off awfully quickly. It takes a lot of effort to turn around an aircraft carrier, a wise person who was once a backbencher in an early NDP government once told me.

Although, I do understand how people working in her particular field do see the urgency in their everyday work. It's hard to be patient when people are in crisis, and the system is moving so slowly and you're feeling like you're outside and can't see why it has to.

But our folks also need to learn that there are a lot of other avenues to pursue before engaging in public sabotage of a government. And our government needs to hone its listening skills to catch issues such as this before they break out into apparently irresolvable impasses.

Unionist

ottawaobserver wrote:
From a distance, it looked like she's written them off awfully quickly. ... But our folks also need to learn that there are a lot of other avenues to pursue before engaging in public sabotage of a government.

OO, with respect, you have no idea what precipitated this extraordinary action, and given the rarity of such public denunciations, I wonder why you would draw some general lesson without knowing more about what happened.

 

Unionist

The Blog also features the responses of the NDP and the Liberals to Transition House's request to pledge to provide needed funding. The Liberal leader signs the pledge, but the NDP says it would be against the law to tie its hands:

ottawaobserver

Unionist wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:
From a distance, it looked like she's written them off awfully quickly. ... But our folks also need to learn that there are a lot of other avenues to pursue before engaging in public sabotage of a government.

OO, with respect, you have no idea what precipitated this extraordinary action, and given the rarity of such public denunciations, I wonder why you would draw some general lesson without knowing more about what happened.

 

Knowing my way around the left, I'm reasonably certain a number of people would be more than happy to instantly draw the opposite conclusion from me, with even less evidence.

Raising holy hell, fine. Publicly quitting the party after less than a year in government ... ? That just looks like going straight to the thermonuclear option, and doesn't leave many other options afterwards.

KenS

I'm not going to go into why I disagree with Pamela- shes not here.

And while we have worked together, and share a lot of underlying experience and perspective... I would chalk up some of the depth of her reaction to her specific and understandable dissapointment over what has happened around the issues she deals with.

I would never say to anyone in her position- "oh, get some perspective." To say I respect her position doesn't say enough- its more than that. But I don't agree with her statement as a general summary of this government.

Unionist

Ken, any insight on the issue of funding for transition houses? Is that in fact the issue that drove Pamela Harrison's decision? If so, what I find odd is that the NDP appeared not to have made any specific promise, at least if I'm understanding the above correspondence.

 

West Coast Lefty

I read the letter from Dan O'Connor the opposite way, Unionist (and thanks for doing the digging to uncover the transition house funding issue as at least one of the reasons for Harrison's letter).  He says the commitment to fund transition houses is in the NDP platform, and from what I gathered from the other material you posted, the $$ are in fact set to flow in the 2010/2011 fiscal year to increase the funding, but Harrison wanted the money to come right away, for totally understandeable reasons. 

The issue for the May 2009 letter during the election campaign was whether Dexter should sign a written pledge as an election candidate to deliver the funding - and there are conflicting interpretations of the Elections Act as to whether it is legal or appropriate for a candidate to sign such an undertaking.  That's a process issue, totally distinct from the substantive commitment to fund the transition houses, which was in the platform and is being met, but not as quickly as Harrison and others would like - at least, that's my understanding based on the information on this thread to date.

Unionist

Well, that's my understanding also WCL. Transition House needs the funding now - not in next year's budget. Seems very clear. But I still don't understand what triggered Harrison's action. She's talking as if she was lied to.

 

genstrike

If anything, I would say that Pamela Harrison is a quick learner.

Personally, I think we always get into tricky issues when as social activists, we start thinking of governments as "our government".  For a while I thought the Manitoba NDP was my government - then tuition for international students went up.  Then ancillary fees went up.  Then my tuition went up by 38%.  Then international student tuition went up again.  Then the tuition freeze was removed and tuition started going up again.  At some point, sometime after the 2007 election in which I regrettably volunteered for a candidate, I realized that the NDP simply wasn't my government.  Now, it may be that education issues were my thing because I was a student at the time (and still am for a couple more months), but along the way there have been a lot of other issues which have frustrated me and other people, and the whole direction just doesn't seem to be the right one.  We can talk about turning an aircraft carrier around, but it's been ten years without any sign of a change in direction, and a change of direction was rejected at a leadership race.  Not to mention that for some reason, whenever the barbarians at the gates get in this aircraft carrier which the NDP says takes a while to turn manages to spin around on a dime.  Meanwhile, I've waited ten years, and the aircraft carrier hasn't turned.  It's definitely slowed down, but it hasn't turned around.

I'm not an expert on NS politics, but from what I've gathered the Dexter government has a lot in common with the Doer government.

I think Harrison hits on something when she says that convention resolutions were "an exercise in the creation of ‘NDP Believers'".  There have been a lot of convention resolutions completely ignored over the past ten years in Manitoba.  The NDP governs in a certain way, so they need to manage the wishes of their supporters who want to see it govern differently.  And there are a lot of ways they do that, and it is aided by some supporters who (no offense to anyone) delude themselves.

I think if we want to be social justice activists, we shouldn't be thinking of one party as our party, because denying political realities and the basics of how the state works will lead to strategic and tactical decisions made on what is essentially faulty intelligence and will inevitably lead to subsequent let-downs - I think Pamela is getting at that in her letter.  I've seen things like this happen in my experience - tactical decisions made with crappy intelligence, which usually ends up with some variation on "lets try to save the NDP from itself"

Stockholm

Maybe she's pissed off that she didn't get offered a job as a ministerial assistant?

I'm just floating possible hypotheses.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

Maybe she's pissed off that she didn't get offered a job as a ministerial assistant?

I've found that people who attribute motives to total strangers are usually revealing their own motives in life.

KenS

Stockholm wrote:

Maybe she's pissed off that she didn't get offered a job as a ministerial assistant?

No. Not the remotest of chances.

Stockholm wrote:
 

I'm just floating possible hypotheses.

"Just".  No particular reason?

Why bother?

Unionist

KenS wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

 

I'm just floating possible hypotheses.

"Just". Randomly? No particular reason?

Why bother?

See my explanation above.

remind remind's picture

Wonder how the other parties who have run NS for decades have been on this and would be on this were they in power?

 

The 2010 budget would be starting next month, but she quits now?

 

It all seems pretty damn phoney to me......

 

genstrike

remind wrote:
It all seems pretty damn phoney to me......

People get frustrated and disillusioned with the NDP all the time, including people who have been involved for a while, especially when the NDP gets elected and doesn't live up to their expectations.  I don't know why this would seem "phoney", I personally know tons of disgruntled and ex-NDPers.

It sounds like it is also not just about specific policies, but the way the government operates.  It sounds like she is also angry that people in the social justice community worked hard to elect the NDP and were promised more input and positive communication with the government than with previous ones, but that hasn't materialized.

Unionist

Harrison says she started writing her letter in December, then held off, then decided to send it after the expense scandal broke last week, involving expense claims by MLAs of all parties, including the premier:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/02/03/ns-mla-expenses-au... finds inappropriate MLA spending[/url]

Stockholm

The Conservative MPP for Yarmouth who was named as one of the worst offenders in the expense "scandal" just resigned his seat in the Nova Scotia legislature. I know that the NDP won Yarmouth back in 1998 - should set up an interesting byelection.

Unionist

Yeah, Hurlburt is the first - I wonder if there will be more to come. I also wonder what this expense scandal had to do with Harrison's decision. I'll try to find where she related the two events...

ETA: Oh yeah, [url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/02/05/ns-ndp-harrison-le... it was[/url]:

Quote:

Harrison said she began writing her letter to Dexter in December but held off sending it, to speak with other New Democrats.

After this week's revelations by Nova Scotia Auditor General Jacques Lapointe, she said it's time to speak out.

"It's a relatively new government but they've been practicing for this for 10 years," said Harrison. "They've had the chance to know and think about how they would do things differently."

I still don't get it.

 

KenS

I don't get it either.

Either shes not being clear about the connection, or was not quoted in a way that would make it clear.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Quote:

Cash-strapped Bryony House in Halifax, the province's largest transition house, cut its only outreach worker just over a week ago and is trying to deal with a debt of $120,000. [...]

Premier Darrell Dexter's NDP government has promised $500,000 to women's shelters in next year's budget, but that money has to be moved up to the current year, Ms. Walton said.

"We're also asking the government to pay off Bryony House's $120,000 deficit and pay for an outreach worker."

Quote:

 

MLAs are entitled to spend $45,000 a year in payments that require no receipts. The auditor general's report examined the claims they did submit between July 2006 and June 2009.

"The extent to which system weaknesses, processing errors, innocent mistakes or conscious decisions by members contributed to these expenditures is unclear," Lapointe told reporters.

"What is clear is that ambiguous rules have contributed to irresponsible practices and questionable expenditures."

 

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/02/03/ns-mla-expenses-audit.html#ixzz0f4TkzZ3S

Imagine this activist not understanding that "her" government couldn't find the equivalent of 4 or 5 MLA Expense funds to solve a short term desperate situation for vulnerable women.

Let us all vilify her for abandoning the cause after running into a brick wall on what she sees as an issue of life and death. Let us not question why there is not a couple hundred grand immediately.  Is she abandoning the party or has the party abandoned her?

Frown

 

Stockholm

I also don't get it since I get the impression that most of the transgressions mentioned by the auditor general would have been from before the election last June and if anything the NDP seems less implicated than the Tories and Liberals are (though MPP from all parties have been tarred).

Fidel

It's like Bingo-gate in B.C. If they can show the NDP have in any way done anything improper, then they conflate that and distort the so-called scandal equating it to crooked dealings involving far more personal gain by the two old line parties in recent history. The worst abuse of taxpayer's money was by a non-NDPer. And he lied as to who was supposed to benefit by the taxpayer-funded power generator. I hope his constituents remember that one next election.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You are right all the parties used the same "loophole" to rake off funds from charities.  The difference was that the Nanaimo NDP institutionalized it and practiced it on a grand scale through the NCHS

The really sad part about the Nanaimo saga is that the people who where playing fast and loose with the elections rules where also playing fast and loose with the legacy funds of the old CCF'ers invested in the NCHS.  Many of those people lost a lot of money to the corrupt system Stupich and his allies put in place.

The Liberals of course shut down the inquiry just before the evidence on the practice of all the other parties was do to be heard. I think the Socreds did it in more places but Stupich did it bigger.  Union Jack's finger prints are all over the NCHS but nothing ever stuck to him.  The stupidest move the BC NDP did was let Harcourt resign over it.  The President of the party and the people running the Commonwealth should have resigned.

KenS

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Imagine this activist not understanding that "her" government couldn't find the equivalent of 4 or 5 MLA Expense funds to solve a short term desperate situation for vulnerable women.

Let us all vilify her for abandoning the cause after running into a brick wall on what she sees as an issue of life and death. Let us not question why there is not a couple hundred grand immediately.  Is she abandoning the party or has the party abandoned her?

Nobody was villifying Pamela. For myself, its just like I said, from the quote, I'm not sure what the connection with the MLA scandal is. And if anything, my guess is that is further disillussioning... not the money connection you were making.

At any rate, I'm going to give more background to this spending scandal than you can get anywhere else.

KenS

The system that allowed the free spending arose during minority government.

The NDP constituency assistants wanted to organize, and that required approval of the legislative Internal Affairs Committee that controls office spending. The NDP Caucus got permisssion to negotiate on behalf of the Speakers Office.

The quid pro quo that the Liberals and PCs wanted was an increase in the budget for the offices, and no controls on what the funds were disbursed for. Nova Scotia spending on constituency offices was at the time the lowest in the country. [And those figures you see include the salaries of the CAs.]

The NDP was amenable to the general budget increase, but objected to the lack of accountability. Going along with the latter was the price of permission for the CAs to organize. This was about 5 years ago.

I heard about it then, though it wasn't in the news. Graham Steele, now the Finance Minister, publicly criticesed the practice more than once. But he was free lancing- the Caucus didn't have a leg to stand on, having agreed to the deal.

Not surprisingly, I've herad nothing but those general complaints since. No idea how some MLAs were using the money- though what came about now seems inevitable.

John MacDonnel has come in for the most criticism an NDP member has received, for his $13,000 in custom furniture purchases. Thats unfortunate, because John is as straight as they come. He needed new furniture, decided he wanted to patronize a local craftsman, bought the pieces over 3 or 4 years, and still returned part of his budget to the Speaker every year. And meanwhile not claiming for a lot of personal expenses for which he was elligible- because he didn't think he needed the benefits.

Howard Epstein has come in for attention for his book purchases- books that he gave schools.

Its arguable that neither should have done what they did- but it wasn't done for personal benefit. And many MLAs who came in for no attention spent their whole budgeats regularly.

As far as I know the 'only' NDP MLA who made purchases as did a number of PC and Liberals that were pretty obviously personal- was Darell Dexter.

But even without the Premeir personally caught up- the NDP is not in a position to say the system sucks and it wasn't our idea.

I think its really unfair that John was personally tarred for the furniture purchases, but as I told him: the system really did suck, our idea or not we signed off on it, and when it blows up its no surprise that who exactly the shit sticks to is relatively arbitrary.

Fidel

It's all I ever heard from my cousin in B.C. was about the Bingo-gate scandal. He votes Liberal. And he gets riled whenever I mention the kick-back and graft and corruption of the two old line parties, the Liberals and Tories over the years for everything from influence peddling to direct conflict of interest shananigans costing taxpayers tens of millions to billions of dollars. They've run this country into the ground over too long a period of time in power. The problem is that working class and lower income voters either don't vote often enough, or when they do vote tending to vote against their own interests by voting Tory and Liberal. It's the same in the states. The struggle for democracy continues.

KenS

Substantively speaking, this just isn't as bad as the Bingogate practices. But I don't blame anyone for not seeing the distinction.

The reactions I hear are often overblown and misplaced, but thats the price of politicians doing stupid stuff. If you do things that look like graft, and you probably should have forseen just how bad its going to look, then you've really got nothing to say when people 'go overboard' in how much and who they want to tar and feather.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

KenS you didn't get my point.  It was not that there was corruption but the fact that a life saving vital service went to hell for the lack of less than a quarter million dollars.  So what was the point of her being active for decades?

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:
  So what was the point of her being active for decades?

Nova Scotians have grown tired of electing corrupt Tory and Liberal governments, one after another. This is provincial politics, and the NS-NDP won't be creating socialism in one province anytime soon. Not since we all know when and by what neoliberal policies and trade deals implemented at the federal level. I think that if the NDP can keep their hands out of the public cookie jar over four years, Nova Scotians will be impressed to no end.

KenS

kropotkin1951 wrote:

KenS you didn't get my point.  It was not that there was corruption but the fact that a life saving vital service went to hell for the lack of less than a quarter million dollars.  So what was the point of her being active for decades?

You actually made a number of points. One was that people were villifying her. Rather than just say not rue, I tried to address where you seemed to be coming from. And you did also say there is an obvious connection to the MLA spending, I questioned that substantively, and knowing Pamela somewhat I'm not sure what connection she meant.

Unionist

I'm sorry I raised that question about the expense scandal. It seems to have veered the discussion away from the transition house issue, which I would have liked to understand better.

 

remind remind's picture

Transition Houses and other VAW programs across Canada face funding shortfalls, at best, because of Harper's gutting services to women,  on top of that  many provinces for their 2009-2010 budgetary year also cut funding to women's programs, allegedly because we are in a recession.

 

Do not know if this happened to the one in question, but it seems very likely, as for the most part cuts were shared equally across Canada.

 

If so, blamming Dexter is hardly rational.

 

Just as is denouncing him a month prior to getting a budgetary influx of an additional 500k.

 

 

 

Fidel

Good post, remind. And just to summarize, the feds slashing transfers to provinces by tens of billions of dollars has been happening since Mulroney. Canada is not an over-taxed country by any means if we compare Canada to 30-some odd other rich industrialized economies. Bananada and the extraordinary neoliberal setup we have in place here is a special case.

Unionist

It's a shame people are prepared to draw conclusions, lay blame, and question "rationality" without know any facts whatsoever.

 

remind remind's picture

....actually nothing was said concrete, or did you fail to read the "if so" that denoted it speculative?!

Unionist

Pamela Harrison is Provincial Coordinator for the Transition House Association of Nova Scotia. Their website featured a report on September 9, 2009, which appears (not sure about this) to have been removed - but it's still available in [url=http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:V9X1b-xVLw4J:www.thans.ca/]Google's cache[/url]:

Transition houses need cash now, say supporters

Quote:
Transition houses are funded through the Community Services Department, but that funding has not increased in 13 years. [...]

Cash-strapped Bryony House in Halifax, the province's largest transition house, cut its only outreach worker just over a week ago and is trying to deal with a debt of $120,000. [...]

"Shame on the government," Ms. Westhaver said. "It just shows how much they devalue women and children."

Premier Darrell Dexter's NDP government has promised $500,000 to women's shelters in next year's budget, but that money has to be moved up to the current year, Ms. Walton said.

"We're also asking the government to pay off Bryony House's $120,000 deficit and pay for an outreach worker."

There's also [url=http://www.friendsoftransitionhouses.blogspot.com/]Friends of Transition House Blog[/url], with a letter-writing campaign to ask Dexter to provide the urgently-needed funding.

Doesn't sound like an aircraft carrier problem to me, OO - more like a lifeboat.

 

 

Unionist

remind wrote:
The 2010 budget would be starting next month, but she quits now?

 It all seems pretty damn phoney to me......

remind wrote:
Do not know if this happened to the one in question, but it seems very likely, as for the most part cuts were shared equally across Canada.

If you read the thread, you'd know that NS has not increased transition house funding for the past 13 years. It has nothing to do with Harper, and it was obviously not the fault of the NDP.

If you read the thread, you'd also know that the transition houses (not just Harrison) urgently asked for next year's money to be moved up to this year's budget. [url=http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:V9X1b-xVLw4J:www.thans.ca/]You may wish to review the reasons.[/url] They seem pretty logical and urgent - like the Labour Department identifying safety issues with counsellors having to work alone; loss of the only outreach worker at Bryony House; massive debt loads.

I don't know what response they got from the government. Do you? But I'll wait to judge until I hear more facts.

 

Unionist

[looking for link]

Fidel

And if they'd just stop buying laptops and electrical generators in Halifax, then they might have the half a million bucks for Transition House. I think it was Mackenzie King who said to the CCF that money doesn't grow on trees.

remind remind's picture

Yes, I read way back up there that  they wanted 2010's budget to be given to them in 2009.

 

And the debt paid off.

Though we do not know why there was such a debt.

 

The article says there has been no increase in 13 years, I noted, but they did not say if there was a decrease that would account for such a debt as 120k.

 

...would believe that community service programs and fundings come in part from the federal government, as many VAW programs in BC were funded through the Status of Women, in partnership with the province.

 

To me, this is like people being furious that  long term home care programs were gutted back in the 90's in BC, and they blamed the NDP, when indeed it was federal funding that was cut, and that money was no longer available for the province to dispense.

 

 

 

Unionist

You don't seem to get that no one is blaming the NDP for creating this problem. And obviously this has nothing to do with federal cutbacks, because it's been a 13-year freeze. What's being questioned here, apparently, is the new government's spending priorities - but I'd like to hear more about that. By the way, the $500,000, when it comes, is shared among ten (10) transition houses and eight (8) women's shelters, so Fidel's snarky comment about money not growing on trees is quite correct. You couldn't afford to water the plants with that kind of funding.

Unionist

The difference between activists like those of Transition House and you, Fidel, is that they have some expectations of the NDP.

 

Fidel

How come Nova Scotia is so poor after 160 years of old line party rule? People might expect that the province would be some free trade wonder and example of capitalist prosperity with Liberals and Tories running the place for that long. And now it's up to Dexter and the NDP to fix it lickity split inside of four years. I know, excuses-excuses they'll say. And we should forget about blaming the global capitalist meltdown. Three recessions in three decades.

remind remind's picture

the 500k is on top of what they currently get is it not?

 

At any rate the NDP is being blammed by Harrison.

Fidel

I know what provincial governments are capable of doing and not doing since the neoliberalorama began in Ottawa, and is now failing spectacularly. Dexter can't create money or raise corporate taxes across the board without fear of capital flight. The bozos before Dexter, mulroney and Chretien have made this country vulnerable by a neoliberal capitalist setup that works for capitalists but not well funded public programs. This is like blaming Bob Rae for what was a national level recession then in the 1990's. Oh look, Bob Rae couldnt afford public auto insurance then either after Mulroney cut us back $4 billion in annual transfers in Ontario.  The money either exists or it doesn't. Sorry to have solved this latest provincial NDP caper so soon. Not every province can swing deals for massive amounts of cheap hydroelectric power from Labrador and sell it at a profit to the states like some large provinces nextdoor to Ontario that we know.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

remind wrote:

Yes, I read way back up there that  they wanted 2010's budget to be given to them in 2009.

 

And the debt paid off.

Though we do not know why there was such a debt.

 

The article says there has been no increase in 13 years, I noted, but they did not say if there was a decrease that would account for such a debt as 120k.

Yup those people just wasted the pittance they got and were not able to live within their means.  

The right wing drivel you use to defend the NDP is quite funny but extremely patronizing of the women trying to provide Transition House services with not enough money.  Talk about attacking your allies. 

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
The difference between activists like those of Transition House and you, Fidel, is that they have some expectations of the NDP. 

Perhaps in experiencing the well worn response from the latest corporate strain assuming their position at the trough, disappointment might be avoided altogether as the hard lesson of apathy sinks in.

When the most practical, sensible and essentially localized questions are met with shrugs, where even dire necessity concerning the emancipation of battered women becomes reduced to a hypothetical affair, truth itself appears as an enemy to those whose interest apparently involves accompanying the excuses in their leisure.

Recognizing the consequences at least would be a better use of ones intelligence than providing cover for a particularly specialized variation of the same ruling class lethargy through inane buck passing exercises.

Pages

Topic locked