Quebec future in Harper Majority

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

KenS wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Quebec has changed since the election..Where even Quebec anglophones are very angry with the outcome.

Which means nothing at all when judging about general trends. There will be some group of people who respond in every conceivable way to major events like the election. That there is a group of them, and they are like-minded, says nothing about how representative they are.

 

Well,I wouldn't say it means nothing.

Most people I know are NOT political junkies and some of them,if asked 15 or 20 years ago,would never DREAM of even contemplating support for sovereignty.

I have yet to talk to anyone who doesn't regard Harper with any name I could repeat here.

It's certainly not scientific but I don't remember a PM that can stir visceral hatred from people like Emporer Harper...INCLUDING Mulroney.

We'll certainly see how people's sentiments change--for better or worse-- in the months and years to come.

But is the sovereignty issue dead?

Only people totally out of touch with this province believe that.

 

KenS

Levy in that CD article:

 

Quote:

Many politically progressive Québécois turned away from the Bloc and toward the NDP for two main reasons: One, they saw preventing a Harper majority as a goal that transcended all other interests, and they gambled that a surge of support for the NDP in Québec could create sufficient nationwide momentum to stop or at least contain the Harpercrats. Two, the left-wing of the Bloc in particular was critical of the party's relative neglect of social issues and fed up with having its vote taken for granted.

 

Although both reasons are mentioned, there is an assumption it was first of all about stopping Harper.

I dont get that feeling. Seems to me it was primarily a rebuke of the Bloc as a spent force. For a lot of people that is because the Bloc is too weak as a progressive force. For a lesser number, that plus the Bloc being a sterile force for sovereignty. The latter obviously dont vote for the NDP because it was a better means for the aspirations of sovereignty. I think the 'lets try them' approach for those folks is a 'calculus' something like this: the Bloc sucks on sovereignty anyway, so what good does supporting them do. Since there is more to politics than sovereignty, and the Bloc is utterly uselss there anyway... so why not the NDP?

I agree that all of this puts a lot of demands and expectations on the NDP- which I cannot imagine they can meet enough of not to alienate chunks of people.

But this is an incredibly fluid situation, to say the least.

I think anyone who is preparing according to an assumption that Harper will just egregiously alienate Quebec, and the NDP will be a bystander, you are fools if you think such a set piece is coming down the pike.

Of course there will be major dynamics pushing in those directions. But it isnt going to be the set piece you are looking for that will maximize the 'winning conditions'.

KenS

I dont remember anyone here saying sovereignty is dead; and I KNOW that is not the thinking in Caucus, before or after election.

I'm sure some/many individual NDP members think/hope that. But if you have got the idea that is some general sense in the NDP, you must be running together things you've heard in the media plus what you inferr from what the NDP says, or something like that.

It is safe to say that there is a consensus in the NDP in Quebec, and outside at least among Dippers who pay close enough attention to the internal Quebec dynamic, that it is time for soveirgnty to move into the background for a while. [Varying on the degree of that.]

But you heard that even from some Bloc activists, as part of the reason for their supporting the NDP, at least for now.

What I said is that it is foolish to bank on Harper majority plus the demise of the Bloc bringing forth winning conditions for another referendum. Don't try to transmute that into me saying sovereignty is dead.

But I will say, that my read is that the people of Quebec have said that they want to hear about something else for a while. Albeit this could include work on the national question. But I think its a heavy dose of seeing what you want to see if you think the primary reason the Bloc was slammed was because they had become useless to sovereignists.

KenS

Quoting from the Levy CD piece again:

 

Quote:

 

The fact that the rest of the country gave Harper his sought-after majority will not sit well with those Québecers who feel - rightly - that they did their bit to forestall this outcome. The political cleavage between Québec and the rest of Canada is undeniable: less than 17% of Québec voters supported the Conservatives, while Tory support exceeded 40% in seven other provinces. To my mind, that's a real recipe for a resurgence of sovereigntist sentiment.

But there is more going on in there than opposition to Harper [or not]. So it remains to be seen whether it is a recipe for anything.

 

Quote:

 

Already I see many of my friends and acquaintances feeling very bitter about the election result and seeing it as confirmation that Québec has no home in the Canadian federation.

What our friends and acquaintances are thinking has a lot to do with where we want to go, but generally has piss all to do with reading where the people of the nation are heading.

Unionist

KenS wrote:

I dont remember anyone here saying sovereignty is dead; and I KNOW that is not the thinking in Caucus, before or after election.

I'm sure some/many individual NDP members think/hope that. But if you have got the idea that is some general sense in the NDP, you must be running together things you've heard in the media plus what you inferr from what the NDP says, or something like that.

Stephen Lewis said it - and Judy Rebick politely told him he hasn't got a clue. And lots of non-Quebeckers have speculated publicly, nonstop, about how and whether this vote will hurt the sovereignty movement. Surprised you've missed it.

Quote:
But I will say, that my read is that the people of Quebec have said that they want to hear about something else for a while. Albeit this could include work on the national question. But I think its a heavy dose of seeing what you want to see if you think the primary reason the Bloc was slammed was because they had become useless to sovereignists.

Ok, my turn: Who said that was the "primary reason"? What a strange straw man. All sovereignists I've ever met, without a single exception, have stated that sovereignty will be achieved, or not, irrespective of anything to do with the Canadian Parliament. The role of the Bloc in that process has been controversial since the Bloc was founded.

But independence for Québec had nothing whatsoever to do with the vote on May 2. People voted against the status quo. They voted against Harper. They voted against the Liberals. And they voted for the NDP because they wanted change and they liked what they saw. And, for a change, the NDP actually dared to mention what it's new program entrenched (asymmetric federalism), i.e., that Québec can be treated differently within a federal Canada. The Sherbrooke Declaration, whether distributed on the street corners or not, helped to create a reassurance among nationalists (and not only soft ones!) that the NDP was not as "centralisateur" as the Bloc was desperately saying in the final days of the campaign. That's my deep analysis FWIW.

Conclusion: The NDP must deliver change. It must reflect people's aspirations and act upon them, notwithstanding the difficulties posed by a Harper majority. Oh, and that doesn't just apply to Québec. It'll just be more of a challenge to figure out what it means for Québec.

KenS

Unionist wrote:

And they voted for the NDP because they wanted change and they liked what they saw. And, for a change, the NDP actually dared to mention what it's new program entrenched (asymmetric federalism), i.e., that Québec can be treated differently within a federal Canada. The Sherbrooke Declaration, whether distributed on the street corners or not, helped to create a reassurance among nationalists (and not only soft ones!) that the NDP was not as "centralisateur" as the Bloc was desperately saying in the final days of the campaign. That's my deep analysis FWIW.

Conclusion: The NDP must deliver change. It must reflect people's aspirations and act upon them, notwithstanding the difficulties posed by a Harper majority. Oh, and that doesn't just apply to Québec. It'll just be more of a challenge to figure out what it means for Québec.

I totally agree. 

As to the NDP's own processes: the days of soft pedalling the Sherbrooke Declaration are over. And the NDP in the ROC is about to get a challenging education.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Sorry,Ken

I wasn't referring to you personally when I mentioned those who are out of touch with Quebec.

The 'winning conditions' are not quite there yet.

We'll see what transpires in the coming months or year (s)

So you're right..We can't bank on it---yet.

KenS

Unionist wrote:

Ok, my turn: Who said that was the "primary reason"? What a strange straw man.

Alan did not use those words; but I do not think I misrepresented him in putting it the way I did.

And I think he is probably representitive of the thinking of lots of sovereinists on the meaning and implications of this election.

ETA: given the cross-post... modify that to say, I think it was legitimate for me to read Alan the way I did.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

How is Layton doing so far?

He made another solid appearance last night on the French language show 'Toute le Monde en Parle'..The same show he went on during the election that is believed to have catapulted his popularity here.

He defended his caucus and its MP's and reached out and promised to work hard for Quebec interests.

While defending the young MP Ruth Brousseau (forgive me if I got her name wrong),Layton said that if we can send our youth to Afghanistan,why can't we let them into Parliament?..Which led to some very hearty applause.

So it looks like despite all the bad press that started right from the get go,Layton's popularity sems like it has remained intact.

But realistically,he's got a real juggling act to perfect...I hope he can master this balance act.

Unionist

Jack was [url=http://www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/tout_le_monde_en_parle/saison7/docu... last night.

When asked (about the fact that the majority of his caucus is now from Québec): "Do you feel as if you're sitting on the edge of a razor?", he replied: "Yes - and for the moment, I'm comfortable." [One of many appreciative audience laughs.]

He said he has spoken to Gilles Duceppe since the latter's defeat. He said, "Mr. Duceppe and I have worked side by side during my entire political career - I respect him and his team." [Applause.]

Anyway, watch it all - lots of good stuff - you learn something about where Quebeckers are at just by observing the audience reaction too.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Good for Layton! I hope he and the party work hard to build on their success, so this election result won't be a one-hit wonder. That means supporting the Quebec sovereignists in his own party.

KenS

How about if we just agree that independence for Quebec was not the dominant theme in the the election results, and not parse over what might be various people's overstaements.

I dont agree that it had "nothing whatsoever to do with it"... or even close. But I dont think we actually disagree about what is central.

Stephen Lewis is speaking for himself only. A LOT of members of the NDP would agree with him. But to be blunt, they don't matter, and they don't have purchase anywwhere within the NDP, except maybe their riding associations, which doesnt matter.

And I am among those who think that this has hurt the sovereignty movement, even though I have not said it. Part of the reason I would not say it, is because that is very much contingent, and IF it turns out to be true it all, the harm to the movement will show when and if it is unable to effectively respond.

I understand the dynamic of movements well enough to know this will be a challenge, and a challenge for some time. Even the business of bringing the sovereignty question back solely to Quebec [from its partial distraction in Ottawa].... that is going to be interesting while Marois and the PQ backpeddle back away from sovereignty [again], at the same time the cadre want to move the other direction.

I think those who say [again] that this is the end of sovereignty are really stupid. And if anything was going to qualify as that, certainly not this May 2 result.

But a challenge, and the situation having become more difficult for the movement, I think that is true.

KenS

It doesnt mean supporting the sovereignists in the NDP- it means giveing them a say.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

alan smithee wrote:
Layton said that if we can send our youth to Afghanistan,why can't we let them into Parliament?

That statement probably deserves a thread of its own.

There was a famous statement that said "if our boys are old enough to fight for their country, they're old enough to vote" - maybe during the Viet Nam war?

Can anyone really equate fighting in Afganistan to being an MP in Parliament? Undecided

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
Layton said that if we can send our youth to Afghanistan,why can't we let them into Parliament?

That statement probably deserves a thread of its own.

There was a famous statement that said "if our boys are old enough to fight for their country, they're old enough to vote" - maybe during the Viet Nam war?

Can anyone really equate fighting in Afganistan to being an MP in Parliament? Undecided

I don't think he was equating fighting in a war with being a MP in Parliament.

That's the kind of spin I'd expect from the Tories' friends in the MSM.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

alan smithee wrote:

I don't think he was equating fighting in a war with being a MP in Parliament.

Really? Read it again: "if we can send our youth to Afghanistan, why can't we let them into Parliament?"

Caissa

NDP Leader Jack Layton returned Sunday to the popular Quebec talk show that helped jumpstart his rise in the province and vowed to defend the interests of Quebecers in Parliament.

Layton told Radio-Canada's influential "Tout le monde en parle" that his first order of business when he returns to the House of Commons will be to introduce legislation that strengthens the language rights of Quebecers working in federally mandated buildings.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/09/pol-layton-quebec-tlmep...

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I don't think he was equating fighting in a war with being a MP in Parliament.

Really? Read it again: "if we can send our youth to Afghanistan, why can't we let them into Parliament?"

 

Wow,Boom Boom.

I didn't know you worked for SunTV.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

That's the dumbest comment I've read in a while, alan. Care to retract?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

My comment was dumb?

Check out the stupid comment you made that I was replying to.

Layton was NOT equating those fighting in a war with those working in the Parliament.

He was saying that if the youth can be fighting wars they should also be able to be a representative in our government.

Clearly,you were implying that Layton was comparing warfare with public office sevice.

In which case,you perverted and spinned his words just like some right wing asshole would on TV or on the radio.

So your original comment was 100 times DUMBER than mine.

KenS

Apparently you guys can do it, but I cant easily identify where you got started with that spat. Puzzling.

Unionist

Aw, come on you two, cut it out. We're all on the same side here. Layton was obviously suggesting that, like our youth who are sent to war as cannon fodder, our young elected MPs are liable to encounter IEDs in the House of Commons (Incompetent Elected Dimwits).

 

wage zombie

What can those of us outside of Quebec do to keep Quebec engaged as a leader on progressive issues in Canada?

Vansterdam Kid

I liked that comment about Afghanistan that Layton made, especially after all that stupid (and maybe somewhat jealous?) tut-tutting by our punditocracy about how people in their 20s aren't qualified to be in public office due to their age. Not to be selfish or anything, but seeing all those young people get elected, quite a number of whom are somewhat younger than me, is inspiring to me. Not that electoral politics is the be all and end all of political involvement, but speaking as someone who hasn't been as involved as I ought to have been in the last few years, it's inspiring and I plan on rectifying the situation by becoming more involved. Well done Quebec!

Caissa

The only female Bloc Québécois MP remaining after last week's election says her party will still ask to be recognized in the House of Commons.

Maria Mourani said Tuesday that even though the Bloc now holds only four seats, it should be allowed to be treated as a party.

"Because the House of Commons recognized us like a nation first of all, and we represent 24 per cent of the people in Quebec, I guess we have the right to be a party," said Mourani.

According to the Parliament of Canada Act, a party must have a minimum of 12 members in the House of Commons to gain official party status, which grants a party certain funding and parliamentary privileges.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/05/10/bloc-party-status.html

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Does anyone know what the Bloc view was in 1994 when both the NDP and PC fell to below 12 seats and were denied status.  As long as they actually supported the smaller parties when they swept onto the Quebec scene then their argument has merit.  

In BC when the only opposition was 2 lonely NDP MLA's they got nothing for being the opposition despite having received about the same percentage of votes as the Bloc did in Quebec this time.  The BC Liberals ran the government with no official opposition because the NDP did not attain party status in the Leg.

If the Bloc supported them last time then Jack should be agreeing if not he should just refuse comment. 

Caissa
KenS

We'll see when someone remembers for sure or digs, but I dont think anyone supported the NDPs request [with 9 seats].

And I'm guessing that is why she phrased her logic like she did [implicitly: that was then, this is different].

KenS

The 2 PCs and 9 NDP MPs did not get recognition. The question is whether the BQ said anything to their request to be recognized. [I know the NDP requested, the PC's I dont remember.]

Unionist

Well, if you want my opinion (or not), Jack should strenuously argue in favour of party status for both the Green Party and the Bloc.

If the Bloc didn't support party status for the NDP (or Charest's PCs) in the past, all the better. A huge part of the NDP's appeal (here, at least) was their refusal to play partisan attack games, their refusal to renounce talk of coalition, their reaching out to all sectors of people and opinions. Jack could even say, "We stand for a fairer voting system - until it's achieved, let's at least do what we can to give recognition and a voice to the parties that many Canadians voted for".

And don't forget Harper will be further scorning individual voters' choices by removing the subsidy.

Let's do it! I'm writing to Jack tout de suite.

 

 

Caissa

It would be in keeping with the demeanour Jack was putting forth in the election campaign.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Unionist wrote:

If the Bloc didn't support party status for the NDP (or Charest's PCs) in the past, all the better. A huge part of the NDP's appeal (here, at least) was their refusal to play partisan attack games, their refusal to renounce talk of coalition, their reaching out to all sectors of people and opinions. Jack could even say, "We stand for a fairer voting system - until it's achieved, let's at least do what we can to give recognition and a voice to the parties that many Canadians voted for".

You've converted me.  I should know better than to suggest anything other than the high road.  It is what will get the NDP to the next stage.  So yup Go Jack Go demand it from Harper.  

I'd still like to know what the BQ said in 1994.  I would be surprised if they opposed it but I don't know.  

Vansterdam Kid

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Does anyone know what the Bloc view was in 1994 when both the NDP and PC fell to below 12 seats and were denied status.  As long as they actually supported the smaller parties when they swept onto the Quebec scene then their argument has merit.  

In BC when the only opposition was 2 lonely NDP MLA's they got nothing for being the opposition despite having received about the same percentage of votes as the Bloc did in Quebec this time.  The BC Liberals ran the government with no official opposition because the NDP did not attain party status in the Leg.

If the Bloc supported them last time then Jack should be agreeing if not he should just refuse comment. 

Another difference between BC in 2001 and Canada now is that the NDP was the only legislative opposition. The Bloc is not. That being said, Unionist's reasoning is sound.

KenS

I'd consider whether that approach is a good idea, and in spite of whether the Bloc did the same [I suspect they didnt]. But probably not on the blanket basis Unionist expressed it.

Vansterdam Kid

There's a certain risk in giving official standing to potential competitors. But in any case it helps undermine the Conservative argument about cutting subsidies to "save tax payers money" by re-enforcing the point that democracy is more important than money. The Conservative response to granting the Greens and the Bloc official standing can go one of two ways; they'll either agree, hoping that it cuts into NDP support but that will undermine their own argument on subsidies. Or they'll oppose it to be consistent with their "saving tax payers money" rhetoric, which is clearly undemocratic and tends to wear on a government after a significant amount of time in office. History and Harper's instincts tend to suggest they'll do the latter.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I think there should be atleast ONE representative from every party on the voting ballot in the House of Commons.

And they should be free to question the other parties and voice their opinions freely within question period and during Parliamentary debates.

But if that is not the policy for all parties (i.e. you need a minimm number of seats to be recognized an official party within Parliament) then the policy shouldn't be tweaked just for them.

I don't remember if the PC's still had any voice or recognition in the Commons in 1993 when they were decimated to 2 seats.

If they were,the elected Bloc MP's should also be given the same consideration.

 

ETA : After reading the last few comments,it would do nothing but good things for the NDP if they insisted that the Bloc and the Greens get to be represented in Parliament.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I doubt if Harper will agree so there is little if any potential for a down side.  He is not going to give extra time in the House to the small parties.  Their criticism might get reported on if they get to speak in the House otherwise it is hall scrums and press releases for them.  

Although if the Harperites do the political equation they might decide division on the opposition side of the House is worth giving some time to in Question Period. 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

The other thing is one must remember there are 308 members in the House.  In the old small caucus the wait time for my MP to be able to raise issues was always a long one.  But if we have 103 MP's I would actually think it a travesty to have May get to speak on every issues when most MP's have to wait in line to speak during their parties time allocation.  The rules I believe already factor in the fact that it is MP's that need the right to speak not just parties.  So while May should have party status she nor the Bloc MP's should have superior access compared to a back bench NDP MP. When it comes to speaking to the House all MP's should be equal.  In the large parties the caucus chooses to have its front benches speak more often but the parties allocation of time does not change. 

 

ygtbk

Caissa wrote:

The only female Bloc Québécois MP remaining after last week's election says her party will still ask to be recognized in the House of Commons.

Maria Mourani said Tuesday that even though the Bloc now holds only four seats, it should be allowed to be treated as a party.

"Because the House of Commons recognized us like a nation first of all, and we represent 24 per cent of the people in Quebec, I guess we have the right to be a party," said Mourani.

According to the Parliament of Canada Act, a party must have a minimum of 12 members in the House of Commons to gain official party status, which grants a party certain funding and parliamentary privileges.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/05/10/bloc-party-status.html

This is obviously special pleading. If they got 10 or 11, fine. But 4? They are way too short of party status to be recognized on any straight-up basis - if they are recognized, it will be because it's part of a bigger game.

Lefauve

Sorry my friend,

Ii read many anglo news paper since the election and it look like that many see the election as an opportunity to turn quebecois as a second class citizen. They celebrates like the sovreignty movement is gone and that quebecois are back at the feet of there master, such arrogance is disgusting, so the old narcicist habit and superiority complexe is back stronger that ever. I got nothing again the majority of you, in fact if i'm offered to go hang out with you, i will mostly say yes. But the other are really pissed me of with there constant nagging and self victimisation.

So in the next referendum, i will vote yes.

Lefauve

Sorry my friend,

Ii read many anglo news paper since the election and it look like that many see the election as an opportunity to turn quebecois as a second class citizen. They celebrates like the sovreignty movement is gone and that quebecois are back at the feet of there master, such arrogance is disgusting, so the old narcicist habit and superiority complexe is back stronger that ever. I got nothing again the majority of you, in fact if i'm offered to go hang out with you, i will mostly say yes. But the other are really pissed me of with there constant nagging and self victimisation.

So in the next referendum, i will vote yes.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I agree Lefauve.

There's alot of Quebec bashing...It started long before the election and it's still going strong.

Like you,I will be voting yes.

The next referendum can't come soon enough.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I think under a Harper majority and only six seats in the caucus, Quebec probably will be leaning towards greater support for total independence - especially under a PQ government which looks likely in two years, and especially if it looks like another Conservative majority might be likely - but we're a good two, three, or four years away from the next referendum, I'd say - but in which case I'd join you in the "yes" camp.

ygtbk

Lefauve wrote:
Sorry my friend, Ii read many anglo news paper since the election and it look like that many see the election as an opportunity to turn quebecois as a second class citizen. They celebrates like the sovreignty movement is gone and that quebecois are back at the feet of there master, such arrogance is disgusting, so the old narcicist habit and superiority complexe is back stronger that ever. I got nothing again the majority of you, in fact if i'm offered to go hang out with you, i will mostly say yes. But the other are really pissed me of with there constant nagging and self victimisation. So in the next referendum, i will vote yes.

Anyone who thinks separatism is dead is being far too optimistic. I expect Marois to win the next provincial election and for a referendum to follow a couple of years after that.

KenS

If I was in Quebec I might vote yes as well. Possible, since I wouldnt be driven either way by any personal core principles.

But here's what I think is true for EVERYBODY: its too early to tell about if there will be a referendum in the next few years, and under what condidtions.

And the hands down #1 uncertainty of whether there will be one- the PQ government.

Unless of course Harper does something REALLY stupid. And thats unlikely, because it would be a one way ticket to being ex-PM. You never know with the West... but in Ontario and the Maritimes even people who resent 'what Quebec gets' come down heavily on politicians seen as Quebec bashing and/or obviously endangering national unity.

Caissa

Sour grapes.

Quote:

Candidates who let their names stand without campaigning showed disrespect to citizens, departing Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said Wednesday.

Duceppe called out winning candidates from the NDP who won their ridings without campaigning, including those who were able to ride the so-called orange crush to victory without setting foot into the riding.

"I deplore people who didn't campaign," Duceppe said. "The burden of proof is there and ... I hope everything [the NDP] promised is delivered."

He took a shot at one NDP candidate who famously doesn't speak fluently French but won her mostly Francophone riding, saying all his candidates spoke French. But he said the people he spoke to said they weren't rejecting the Bloc, but trying something new.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I wonder how bad her French is.  Is it worse than Jack's was in 2008?  I remember listening to him speak in French then and thinking that he was gong slow enough that I could understand him.  I concluded he needed more lessons. He got them.  

It says she is not fluent in French but does that mean she mangles it like Chretien in English or like Manning trying to speak French.  Who knows with a little immersion if she has the basics she might even surprise people by giving a maiden speech in the House at least in part in very well rehearsed French.  A lot of Franco Ontarians are not fluent but still have a grasp of the language that is far above the level required to graduate from high school.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

What Duceppe failed to mention was all the Conservative candidates that were no shows at public debates or wouldn't talk to the media or wouldn't appear on certain TV shows.

It's no surprise that Duceppe is bitter with the outcome..Who can blame him,really...This election was unprecedented to say the least.

But I do agree with him in his hope that the NDP can deliver their promises.

As for provincial politics,as unpopular Charest is (and he's VERY unpopular),I can't see the PQ winning a landslide majority with Marois.

Especially considering that she did a 180 and reached out to Legault,hence aligning herself to the right even though Quebeckers voted en masse for a Social Democratic Party.

I still think Duceppe is their best choice.

Atleast with Duceppe,there's a glimmer of hope that I MAY vote PQ..But there's not a hope in hell that I'd vote for Marois' PQ.

But my personal political 'nocturnal emission' would see the QS explode in the next election just like the NDP did in the last.

For once,I see that it is possible for anything to be possible.

Oh,and BTW...

Seems English media won't let this new MP Brosseau go...It's incredible how much the media is going to town on her.

Where was this media blitz for all the Tory scandals from the last 5 years?

This is a concerted effort to kill the NDP's momentum.

Harper must be grinning...His friends in the media are going to do all the dirty work for him.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Don't worry his cabinet will still decry the bias of the "left wing" media.  

ghost-of-nerkman

Although there are a few recounts that have taken place since election night, most of the information on the CBC's Canada Votes interactive map is accurate enough to give anyone a good idea what really happened:

I can't help but feel that perhaps even though the sovereignty issue might not be dead, I doubt the average Québecker is thinking about it right now.  I think they're too busy cursing the more concrete circumstances of everday life.  As I said upthread, blaming the entirety of the RoC is counter-productive, and frankly, a mistake.  I think the notion that quite a few people in every corner of the country (save for Alberta) wanted Harper gone needs to be reinforced to everyone.

It's assuming a whole lot to believe that sovereignty will automatically come into the foreground and regain widespread popularity within the next few years.  Harper knows how close he was to not getting his majority.  He knows he can't risk alienating Québec too much, because if he does, he will lose the next election.  The only people who will vote for the Tories are the folks out in Alberta and Saskatchewan (and even then, that wouldn't be a lock, because a few of those ridings came close to going Orange as well).

Also, I think that Layton is correct in seeing this as a golden opportunity to bridge the gap between Québec and the other provinces.  In fact, that is the only way the Tories could be defeated in 2015.

I've been living in Québec now for 9 years.  I love Montréal.  Before I came here, I had my own preconceptions about sovereignists, separatists and nationalists' views on Québec's independence.  They may have not convinced me to divest of my federalist viewpoint, but I have come to understand why they aspire for their goals, and how many of the more socially progressive militants share the same genetic material as I (and many others outside Québec).  As a Franco-Ontarian, I understand the desire for self-determination and the power to achieve it.  I also understand that as a lifelong NDP member, the committment I make is a passport everywhere there are people who share my sense of social justice and economic democracy.  This is not a goal that is necessarily achieved by leaving.

I say, let's give it a shot together.  At the very least, this election has contained the Québec/French-Canadian bashers almost to one party.  At least we know where to aim now.

As for the right-wing media, I wouldn't worry about it too much.  The NDP did an awesome job with Brousseau when she went to meet folks in her new riding.  They're not getting distracted in playing defense.

Pages

Topic locked