Quebec Liberal Leadership Race

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina
Quebec Liberal Leadership Race

Anyone interested in the Quebec Liberal leadership contest? I hear a Neurosurgeon who butted heads with Charest alot is the front runner, maybe someone with ties to Mulcair?

Unionist

Yeah, the neurosurgeon won, on the first ballot. He had quit politics in 2008 after serving as Charest's health minister for five years.

Yawn.

[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Philippe+Couillard+elected+leader+Qu... Couillard elected leader of the Québec Liberal Party[/url]

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Ha - I didn't even know this thread existed until today! Laughing

Unionist

That's because Justin wasn't running.

Hey - Charest gave a real fighting election-ready speech at the farewell tribute they gave for him Friday evening.

Anyone think he'll run for mayor of Montréal? He does have a home here, in Westmount. As a result of the student strike, everyone knows where it is now!

 

Brachina

http://m.thestar.com/?content=45c6900fc24db454365e9bb251e5c1df&section=news

Does anyone know how close Couillard and Mulcair were, woud this guy be a natural ally for Tom at the provincial level?

Where does Couillard stand within the Quebec Liberal Parties political spectrum?

I mean to the left or right of Charest.

Chantal seems to think they'll make allies.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Seems to me that Mulcair cosying up to the LPQ would be a kiss of death for the NPD and a blessing for the BQ.

 

Brachina

That depends on how Mulcair goes about it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

That was a non statement what do you actually mean? Do you think Tom can fly as well? Does he have to go into a phone booth because if he does they are getting really scarce.

After he does that maybe he can come out here and cozy up to their cousins the BC Liberals.

Brachina

kropotkin1951 wrote:

That was a non statement what do you actually mean? Do you think Tom can fly as well? Does he have to go into a phone booth because if he does they are getting really scarce.

After he does that maybe he can come out here and cozy up to their cousins the BC Liberals.

You accuse Tom of being superman and yet I'm the one who made a non statement?

Look its simple they should work on those projects where they hold common ground such as getting Quebec to sign the constitution, I'm not suggesting they get tied at the hip.

I believe Tom should try to work with all the Premiers were there is common ground. Its called Bipartisanship.

lagatta

Philippe Couillard also has a rather sordid history in terms of covert privatisation of parts of our health system.

As for Charest, don't you have to be a resident of the city of Montréal to be a mayoral candidate? Westmount is utterly surrounded by the city of Montréal and is just west of the downtown core, but due to it supporting demerger, it is not a part of the city; it is a wealthy independent enclave.

I see no reason for Québec to sign the constitution. All that would do is open a can of worms.

Brachina

kropotkin1951 wrote:

That was a non statement what do you actually mean? Do you think Tom can fly as well? Does he have to go into a phone booth because if he does they are getting really scarce.

After he does that maybe he can come out here and cozy up to their cousins the BC Liberals.

You accuse Tom of being superman and yet I'm the one who made a non statement? Look its simple they should work on those projects where they hold common ground such as getting Quebec to sign the constitution, I'm not suggesting they get tied at the hip. I believe Tom should try to work with all the Premiers were there is common ground. Its called Bipartisanship.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

No matter how many times you repost the same comment it doesn't mean it is what I said.  The use of a question mark is to denote the difference between a question and a statement.  I asked you if you thought Tom could do certain things I did not tell you I thought he could.

I don't think that I have every seen someone do double posts an hour and ten minutes apart.  How did you do that? [note the question mark at the end of the last sentence]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta wrote:

As for Charest, don't you have to be a resident of the city of Montréal to be a mayoral candidate? Westmount is utterly surrounded by the city of Montréal and is just west of the downtown core, but due to it supporting demerger, it is not a part of the city; it is a wealthy independent enclave.

Municipalities are governed by provincial legislation so maybe you could tell us.  In BC there is no such rule.

Back in the '80's before either became Premier, Harcourt ran against Van Der Zalm for Mayor of Vancouver and the Zalm didn't live in the city. The best part of the campaign was Harcourt and his supporters at the city limits welcoming the Zalm on his way into the city to campaign.

Voters seem to consider that a negative at least in this part of the country. The Zalm went down in flames.

lagatta

I don't know whether there is such a rule here. I'd have to look it up, as you would. The statutes are all online, in English as well as in French.

This used to be a bit of a handicap for élites wanting to stand here, as so many of them were living in Westmount, Outremont or Ville Mont-Royal (Town of Mount-Royal). Westmount and Outremont especially are old, central urban neighbourhoods, surrounded by the city of Montréal. (A bit of Outremont borders on Ville Mont-Royal). Now Outremont is part of Mtl, but not the more anglo Westmount. (There are actually many francophones and allophones there now as well).

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sorry Lagatta but since you asked the question about your city it seemed fair to me that you provide the answer.  Its not like we are your research assistants.  I provided you the answer for my part of the country.

lagatta

I don't expect anyone to be my research assistants. But I'm not yours either. I do that kind of stuff all day, for my paid work.

Unionist

lagatta wrote:

I don't know whether there is such a rule here. I'd have to look it up, as you would. The statutes are all online, in English as well as in French.

I think you were right and I was wrong. Section 61 of the elections and referendums act says:

Quote:
A person is eligible for office as a member of the council of a municipality if he is entitled to have his name entered on the list of electors of the municipality and if he has resided, continuously or not, in the territory of the municipality for at least 12 months on 1 September of the calendar year in which a general election is to be held.

Westmount isn't part of Montréal any more - in fact, Charest arguably beat the PQ in 2003 on his promise to allow de-mergers - so he shafted his own mayoralty aspirations (which I dreamed up)! It's almost Shakespearean.

I guess he'll have to settle for Harper's job after all.

 

lagatta

Indeed, that would make a great drama. I remember the VERY cynical BBC drama, "House of Cards".

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Brachina wrote:
http://m.thestar.com/?content=45c6900fc24db454365e9bb251e5c1df§ion=news Does anyone know how close Couillard and Mulcair were, woud this guy be a natural ally for Tom at the provincial level? Where does Couillard stand within the Quebec Liberal Parties political spectrum? I mean to the left or right of Charest. Chantal seems to think they'll make allies.

That's just insane. The NDP need to stay the hell away from the Quebec Liberals. Our natural alliances are QS, not the PLQ.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Seems to me that Mulcair cosying up to the LPQ would be a kiss of death for the NPD and a blessing for the BQ.

 

Absolutely. The idea is insane.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta wrote:

I don't expect anyone to be my research assistants. But I'm not yours either. I do that kind of stuff all day, for my paid work.

Sorry Lagatta but I didn't ask the original question you did.  I answered you respectfully with the knowledge I had and you replied with snark. Please have a nice day and try to ignore me because you seem to often read something into my posts that is not intended.

Brachina

Boom Boom wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Seems to me that Mulcair cosying up to the LPQ would be a kiss of death for the NPD and a blessing for the BQ.

 

Absolutely. The idea is insane.

I just refering to the constitutional issue, which QS is not an ally on.

Brachina

kropotkin1951 wrote:

No matter how many times you repost the same comment it doesn't mean it is what I said.  The use of a question mark is to denote the difference between a question and a statement.  I asked you if you thought Tom could do certain things I did not tell you I thought he could.

I don't think that I have every seen someone do double posts an hour and ten minutes apart.  How did you do that? [note the question mark at the end of the last sentence]

I'd tell you how I did it, but I'd prefer to keep my Mysique ;p

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brachina wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Seems to me that Mulcair cosying up to the LPQ would be a kiss of death for the NPD and a blessing for the BQ.

Absolutely. The idea is insane.

I just refering to the constitutional issue, which QS is not an ally on.

While I am not from Montreal it seems to me from afar that Quebec embraced the NPD to be a progressive voice. Cosying up to the neo-con Quebec Liberal party because both parties are federalists would appear to me to be a fool's game and guaranteed to lose them support.

I also think that if Mulcair starts highlighting constitutional issues from a strident federalist position he may alienate many of the voters who switched to them from the BQ in the last election. I didn't follow the campaign in Quebec closely other the than the exiting polling numbers but I thought that Jack actually did his best to downplay the constitutional issues not run on it.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Krop nailed it, unless I missed something.

Brachina

Actual no he didn't.

Jack made it clear he was going to work towards building the winning conditions for Quebec to sign the constitution. Mulcair is following through on that.

And I'm not talking about about becoming bffs with the Quebec Liberals. Both leaders share a position on that issue and the odds are that the Liberal will end up the next Premier. It makes sense to work together on the issue.

Look Quebecers aren't stupid, they know gasp, that the NDP is a federalist party.

And to be far Mulcair met with the current Premier to see what issues they had in common and what they could work towards.

When Mulcair becomes Prime Minister he's going to have try to work with the Premiers no matter who they are or what they stand for. That includes people like Brad Wall, Alison Redford on the Tory side of thing, possibly seperatists in Quebec or Quebec Liberal Party, and who knows what else. He doesn't get to hide in the corner and sulk become they don't share his idealology, he has to and will do his best to work with them like he will an NDP Premier.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brachina the Quebec Liberals look a whole lot like the BC Liberals. You do have a point that Mulcair does come out of that tradition and sat as a cabinet minister when Charest was hacking and slashing.

The problem I have is defining the winning conditions.  The PQ use the same term to describe what they want to do before the next referendum.  It is just political smoke and mirrors unless you flesh out what is meant by the term. The National Assembly is the only body that is going to decide if Quebec signs on to the constitution. I don't see any Quebec government in waiting that will sign onto the existing one and thus that means a new round of constitutional talks.  If Mulcair goes down that road he will tank the party in many provinces including BC and QUebec but  maybe not Ontario.

Just because he is from Quebec doesn't change the fact that he is the leader of a federal party.  If Cullen had won nobody would be suggesting he should cozy up to the LPQ so what makes Mulcair any different.