Quebec politics: Room for one more party

440 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wilf Day

lagatta wrote:
stabbing the many QS supporters who not only voted NDP but also worked for them - and more than a few were veteran campaigners - in the back is beyond vile.

On the other hand, let me suggest another possibility. Tell me if this could be true.

The press were ready to jump on any NDP militants or staffers who were found working for QS. "NDP-sovereignist alliance," etc. etc. etc. So some of them had to hide.

Now they can come out in the open, with the line "next time there will be a progressive federalist party, but not this time, so as an interim step we can work for QS."

Could this work?

janfromthebruce

The reason that some PCs changed their names or party affliation is because of the corruption associated with their provincial party - eg. PC to Sask Party in Sask; and Social Credit to Liberal. It wasn't because they wanted a new name.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Why would they want to do that now that the Federal NDP has undermined the party they've worked for without consulting them or anyone else in QS?

It is such an awful move by Mulcair. And a full on attack on the most principled political party in Quebec (and Canada, for that matter).

Brachina

How is this a betrayal of QS, was thier a formal agreement that this not happen or any alliance at all for that matter? No. While some QS volunteers worked for the NDP, so did some Quebec Liberals, and even some from the relative left wing of the CAQ.

Look say QS did better and Amir was on his way to being co-premier, a battle with the Federal NDP over seperatism would be inevitable. This could and would have been avoided had QS dumped Seperatism. It made this battle inevitable, the NDP is a Federalist party.

If it makes you feel any better thier is always the possiblity that the NDP makes a deals non compete deal over certain ridings like Amir's.

Doesn't Amir have connections in the NDP, I believe he's a member? Is it possible that he knew this was coming?

Anyway the UCQ has more to be annoyed by then QS, assuming UCQ doesn't get absorbed into the NDP.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

This move could be an opportunity for QS supporters - move to a provincial party with national name recognition, and a party that most likely will do better in the polls than QS ever could.

lagatta

Oh come on, these things can't be formal public agreements.

Who on earth says "separatism" these days?

People who want an independent Québec want independence, not "separatism".

It is not a matter of making us (in Qs) feel better, it is a matter of not being mendacious shits. This crap reminds me of my last manfriend. Snakes in the grass.

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:

lagatta wrote:
stabbing the many QS supporters who not only voted NDP but also worked for them - and more than a few were veteran campaigners - in the back is beyond vile.

On the other hand, let me suggest another possibility. Tell me if this could be true.

The press were ready to jump on any NDP militants or staffers who were found working for QS. "NDP-sovereignist alliance," etc. etc. etc. So some of them had to hide.

Now they can come out in the open, with the line "next time there will be a progressive federalist party, but not this time, so as an interim step we can work for QS."

Could this work?

 

No, Wilf, I don't think so. The clear message to all QS supporters - "sovereignists" and "federalists" alike - is that there is no point building the strength and support of this party now, because QS won't be there in the long term.

Stockholm

QS had an opportunity to take a CAQ-like position on independence and say they were a progressive party open to sovereignists and federalists alike and that if elected they would put 100% of their effort into social justice and that the "national question" ought to be left alone etc... not NO, instead the decided to declare themselves an explicitly sovereignist party and to slam the door in the face of anyone from the left who doesn't believe in Quebec independece (of which there are many). Its gotten to a point where David and Khedir and Aussant and Marois have gotten into debates over who is the most unswervingly loyal to the sovereignist cause etc... and that silly video by QS depicting a beaver being kicked didn't help either. If you are left of centre and you want Quebec to be an indepoendent country you are already have lots of choices - you have the PQ, you have Option Nationale. Right now, if you are a progressive federalist you have NADA. Hopefully once a provincial NDP is formed, it can hoover up those people in QS who were never all that into sovereignty in thje first place - and the pur et dur independentists in QS can all go join Opinion nationale for all I care.

Aristotleded24

Brachina wrote:
I support this idea 110 percent. The NDP first loyalty in Quebec is to Quebecors, not to QS. This isn't a betrayal, its an opportunity to have a much better vechile to create positive change in Quebec. The truth is QS is a failure, its badly lead, structurally flawed, and is trapped in the single digits. As for Federal Members of QS being betrayed, they were betrayed by QS with that Beaver kicking commercial, they were betrayed when QS voted to keep,Seperatism as a key part of its identity. Federalists are second class citizens of QS. Speaking of the Beaver I'm betting that was the final straw that made the NDP choose this path. On a more serious note, I'm betting that the NDP has done internal polling, focus groups, and other research on this idea in Quebec. They wouldn't do this lightly. Even the timing might figure into a greater plan. This is also about deeping the roots in Quebec. Of course this means QS is fucked even more then it was before, but as said before the needs of Quebec must come first.

To say nothing of how the hard work that Khadir has put into Quebec issues, particularly corruption, is at risk of being undermined.

Stockholm

Khadir can continue his work...he can renounce the folly of sovereignty and help found the Quebec NDP - or he can join Option Nationale and create a purely sovereignist radical alternative.

Aristotleded24

Brachina wrote:
How is this a betrayal of QS, was thier a formal agreement that this not happen or any alliance at all for that matter? No.

Let's also remember that in the beaver ad, QS explicitly denied any links with the federal NDP and ridiculed such an idea as a conspiracy theory. QS was the party that made its links with the NDP the issue, not the other way around.

Unionist

A whole lot of triumphalist ignorance expressed in the last few posts by those who have nothing to do with Québec and its aspirations. You speak like those who kept the NDP in the political wilderness here for generations. Only now, you are again misreading the May 2011 results as some kind of affirmation of federalism, and you can't for the life of you figure out why the left here can't simply replicate your brilliant conclusions and abandon this misbegotten and embarrassing nationalist credo. You see the voices of Quebecers in this thread, but discount and ignore them.

This mentality will return the NDP to where it once was, before Quebecers collectively rose up to give it a vote of confidence that it has never earned or appreciated - a vote for progressive social change, not, as you flatter yourselves, for a federation defined by you.

lagatta

Moreover, the Parti Québécois is not "progressive" or "left-of-centre".

I suppose it was in its initial term, when it enacted a lot of progressive legislation; the anti-scab law, limits on electoral spending, protection of farmland etc. And, one that will stick in the maw of some here, the Charter of the French Language, which corrected long-standing discrimination and protected the language of the majority.

Later, it enacted a decree against labour rights, gutting collective agreements, and tried to solve a budgetary problem by forced early retirements for nurses and teachers. Putting nurses out to pasture (sometimes before 50!) seriously harmed the health system, deprived of the most experienced among these medical professionals. And then, Bouchard and "Les Lucides"...

No, there is not a huge basin of leftists in Québec who are opposed to independence or sovereignty. There are quite a few now who are rather indifferent to the issue, but that is because they view issues globally and are rather uninterested in which state they are fighting.

Stockholm wants to dictate to QS what position to take on the national question? There was a long, democratic debate throughout the party. A few people left, but they were not very many.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Brachina wrote:
Look say QS did better and Amir was on his way to being co-premier, a battle with the Federal NDP over seperatism would be inevitable. This could and would have been avoided had QS dumped Seperatism.

Aside from the cartoonish appeal to the 1990-vintage boogeyman "separatism," I suppose it never occured to you that the obvious way to avoid this would be for the Federal NDP to acknowledge Quebec's right to self-determination and build a progressive party from the ground up, rather than instruct the people that handed the NDP their best electoral result in history how best to comprt and define themselves. Only Trudeau's ghosts want a "battle over separatism" (sic).

ETA. Boom Boom, I think Aristotled24 was being sarcastic.

Stockholm

I the long run, I hope that CAQ becomes the new default right oif centre federalist party and that the NDPQ eventually becomes the default left of centre federalist party and that the PQ becomes an increasingly irrelevant single issue party that eventually fades away into nothingness.

Unionist

Non-Quebecers musing, in the Québec forum, over the failure of "separatism" and the preparation for the return of "progressive" Quebecers to come to their senses and return to the federalist fold of some new provincial party which will require adherence to federalism and opposition to all other parties as a condition of membership. I personally will never support such a party, and I can think of precious few in the labour movement who would.

Unless and until you respect the right of Quebecers to self-determination - and I don't mean just to form their own state but to determine their own political affairs on a daily basis - we will continue to surprise you. Watch your asses for bite marks.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

robbie_dee wrote:

 But if QS only wins another seat or two, or worse, loses Khadir's seat and slips out of the National Assembly, then it probably makes sense for progressives to try something different next time. 

That's where I'm at, and maybe Mulcair is too.

NorthReport

Just what Quebec needs - another right-wing party.

 http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/quebec-conservatives-try-for-a-comeback-in-cr...

Brachina

Unionist wrote:

Non-Quebecers musing, in the Québec forum, over the failure of "separatism" and the preparation for the return of "progressive" Quebecers to come to their senses and return to the federalist fold of some new provincial party which will require adherence to federalism and opposition to all other parties as a condition of membership. I personally will never support such a party, and I can think of precious few in the labour movement who would.

Unless and until you respect the right of Quebecers to self-determination - and I don't mean just to form their own state but to determine their own political affairs on a daily basis - we will continue to surprise you. Watch your asses for bite marks.

 

Do you really think this is coming from outside Quebec, that it dippers in ROC that are leading on this? This is coming from Mulcair's office and both his inner circle and most of his MP's are you guess it Quebecers! Do you honestly think they would take this risk if they weren't hearing it in the streets and in thier research, this is a big serious risk for Mulcair and not something he'd undertake lightly.

And last time I checked Quebec does have self determination, it runs its own Healthcare, Education system, Hydro Quebec, resources, enviromental ministery, ect... Even into areas of normally federal juristiction in other provinces such as immigration. The federal goverment deal with what the military and forgiegn affairs. Quebec very much does run its daily affairs. Under a Quebec NDP government Quebec will continue to run its own affairs and decide to cooperate with the feds or opt out. This will not change. Policies will change of course, but Quebec City will run the show.

robbie_dee

lagatta wrote:
Stockholm wants to dictate to QS what position to take on the national question? There was a long, democratic debate throughout the party. A few people left, but they were not very many.

I highly doubt either QS or the NDP is listening to Stockholm. I am certain Quebec voters aren't.

Regarding the debate within QS over the position to take on sovereignty, fair enough. However QS members should not be surprised that the position they chose to adopt (along with the decision of their campaign team to run the offensive "beaver" ad which appears to have received far greater attention outside Quebec than inside it) would invite a response of this nature from the NDP.

That being said, there is no NDP competition during this election in any case. So it can't be an excuse, unless one really thinks that prospective QS voters will now stay home or opt for other parties. If QSers get out there, organize, and win even half of the 15 seats the party is targetting, then to borrow a term from another context that will create "facts on the grounds" the NDP will have to recognize. But if QS only wins another seat or two, or worse, loses Khadir's seat and slips out of the National Assembly, then it probably makes sense for progressives to try something different next time. 

Stockholm

Yes, but Mualcair isn't a "real" Quebecer according to the PQ since his first language is English and his wife is a foreigner

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta wrote:

Moreover, the Parti Québécois is not "progressive" or "left-of-centre". I suppose it was in its initial term, when it enacted a lot of progressive legislation; the anti-scab law, limits on electoral spending, protection of farmland etc. And, one that will stick in the maw of some here, the Charter of the French Language, which corrected long-standing discrimination and protected the language of the majority. Later, it enacted a decree against labour rights, gutting collective agreements, and tried to solve a budgetary problem by forced early retirements for nurses and teachers. Putting nurses out to pasture (sometimes before 50!) seriously harmed the health system, deprived of the most experienced among these medical professionals.

Reads like a history of the 1990's BC NDP.

I figure the people of Quebec will decide to be independent or not and they don't need my opinion or consent.  If however Quebec politicians from any party want to reopen the constitutional debate then they need to realise that the negotiations will involve 14 governments not two. Quebec aside, no matter who controls the H of C the other 12 governments will all be there to protect their citizens interest in a redefined confederation.

It remains to be seen how brilliant the new Quebec team is at avoiding the landmines now that they appear to be committed to a strident position on federalism.  From afar I thought that Jack's brilliance on the constitutional file was saying it was not a big issue. That allowed most Quebecers to vote on social policy issues not the independence issue.  Mulcair's team does not seem to share that approach.

Brachina

Catchfire wrote:

Brachina wrote:
Look say QS did better and Amir was on his way to being co-premier, a battle with the Federal NDP over seperatism would be inevitable. This could and would have been avoided had QS dumped Seperatism.

Aside from the cartoonish appeal to the 1990-vintage boogeyman "separatism," I suppose it never occured to you that the obvious way to avoid this would be for the Federal NDP to acknowledge Quebec's right to self-determination and build a progressive party from the ground up, rather than instruct the people that handed the NDP their best electoral result in history how best to comprt and define themselves. Only Trudeau's ghosts want a "battle over separatism" (sic).

ETA. Boom Boom, I think Aristotled24 was being sarcastic.

I agree with Rob on this matter, QS picked this fight with thier disgusting beaver ad, if they didn't want it, they shouldn't done it. Did QS not think thier wouldn't be reprecussions?

Brachina

kropotkin1951 wrote:

lagatta wrote:

Moreover, the Parti Québécois is not "progressive" or "left-of-centre". I suppose it was in its initial term, when it enacted a lot of progressive legislation; the anti-scab law, limits on electoral spending, protection of farmland etc. And, one that will stick in the maw of some here, the Charter of the French Language, which corrected long-standing discrimination and protected the language of the majority. Later, it enacted a decree against labour rights, gutting collective agreements, and tried to solve a budgetary problem by forced early retirements for nurses and teachers. Putting nurses out to pasture (sometimes before 50!) seriously harmed the health system, deprived of the most experienced among these medical professionals.

Reads like a history of the 1990's BC NDP.

I figure the people of Quebec will decide to be independent or not and they don't need my opinion or consent.  If however Quebec politicians from any party want to reopen the constitutional debate then they need to realise that the negotiations will involve 14 governments not two. Quebec aside, no matter who controls the H of C the other 12 governments will all be there to protect their citizens interest in a redefined confederation.

It remains to be seen how brilliant the new Quebec team is at avoiding the landmines now that they appear to be committed to a strident position on federalism.  From afar I thought that Jack's brilliance on the constitutional file was saying it was not a big issue. That allowed most Quebecers to vote on social policy issues not the independence issue.  Mulcair's team does not seem to share that approach.

Who do you think advised Jack on this? His Quebec Depty Leader. If Mulcair shifts policy its because the game has changed. Not that any of this actually changes the constititional policy positition. Jack wanted to build the winning conditions for Quebec to sign the constititution. Mulcair's positition is the exact same, hell Mulcair probably was the one to suggest it. One condition for Quebec to sign would be a government willing to work with the Federal NDP to build those conditions, the Federal NDP can't do it alone.

Now the interesting question is who should lead it, Pierre has been suggested, a good choice, but let me make another.

MP Alexander Boultrice, he's younger, has more elected experience, is popular and would have a better chance of reassuring QS supporters.

Amir has been suggested, it would be good in PR with QS supporters, but QS's failure should be a warning.

Any others ideas of who should lead? I think it has to be a big name, it will be hard to get in the debates as it is without a seat in the National Assembly.

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
A whole lot of triumphalist ignorance expressed in the last few posts by those who have nothing to do with Québec and its aspirations. You speak like those who kept the NDP in the political wilderness here for generations. Only now, you are again misreading the May 2011 results as some kind of affirmation of federalism, and you can't for the life of you figure out why the left here can't simply replicate your brilliant conclusions and abandon this misbegotten and embarrassing nationalist credo. You see the voices of Quebecers in this thread, but discount and ignore them.

Some of the people to support the creation of a Quebec NDP in this thread are also from Quebec. Do their perspectives not count?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

removed

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

removed

Jacob Richter

I'm with Stockholm here, except for his provincial NDP fetish.  A radical alternative that is either "agnostic" or federalist on the Quebec position is what's missing.

lagatta

Both Charest and Mulcair are half Irish and half "old-stock" francophone Québécois. I believe both have spoken French and English from childhood. Mulcair's "foreign" wife is a francophone. I believe she is a Frenchwoman of Jewish Moroccan descent.

More than one Francophone Québécois politician could boast of Irish descent, Ryan, O'Neill, the Johnson family...

I don't think it was Marois, but radical nationalists (Nationaleux, blueshirts) regularly insult Charest by using the English version of his given names. You will find a surfeit of such people at the site vigile.net

Québec solidaire went on record about that kind of crap.

I really don't understand who decided to run the cartoon ads. I don't even think the "beaver" one was the worst, except for its (cartoonish) portrayal of cruelty to animals.

QS's media and many of its candidates' ads are far, far better.

quebecsolidaire.net

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Yes, but Mualcair isn't a "real" Quebecer according to the PQ since his first language is English and his wife is a foreigner

I faintly recall someone in the PQ (Marois???) going after Charest about his name I think it was. That kind of parochial bullshit doesn't fly with me. This stuff is what turns me off from the PQ.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

lagatta wrote:
Québec solidaire went on record about that kind of crap.

Good to hear. I really despair when I read comments about who is pure laine or whatever the expression is, and who is not. What the hell does it matter? We're all people. If I am pricked, do I not bleed?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

You're right (as usual!) - it was not Marois. 

Link

Some have claimed that Charest downplays his legal first name John by presenting himself in French as Jean so as to appeal more to francophone Quebecers. For example, in the 1997 federal election, Bloc Québécois MP Suzanne Tremblay attacked Charest by saying, "First, let's recall who Jean Charest really is... his real name is John, that's what's on his birth certificate, not Jean."  Charest responded that, his mother being an Irish-Quebecer, it was the Irish priest who baptized him that wrote John on the baptism certificate, but that he was always known as Jean in his family.

 

I gotta tell you, that type of small-minded nit-picking obssessive pettiness by Suzanne Tremblay (and others) drives me crazy. Frown

autoworker autoworker's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

lagatta wrote:
Québec solidaire went on record about that kind of crap.

Good to hear. I really despair when I read comments about who is pure laine or whatever the expression is, and who is not. What the hell does it matter? We're all people. If I am pricked, do I not bleed?

The trouble is that even some who bleed demand their pound of flesh.

love is free love is free's picture

i'm stilll digesting the news of the ndp provincial party, the wisdom of such a program seems very unclear to me at this point.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

love is free wrote:

i'm stilll digesting the news of the ndp provincial party, the wisdom of such a program seems very unclear to me at this point.

I think it's something they've wanted for a while, and the Orange Wave of last year has probably pushed them to realize they probably will never have an opportunity like the present to get on with it.

Link: New Democrats prepared to start a provincial party in Quebec

It's no secret that Mulcair has asked his NDP MPs and their staffers not to wade in to the Quebec election, just as he asked them to stay out of the Quebec student protests in the past few months.

But with a majority of federal seats in that province and his Quebec caucus being the youngest in federal history, Mulcair was asked whether the NDP could stay mum on an election that could have a profound impact on federal politics.

"I'm not going to start wading in on a provincial campaign where we are not playing a role. My job is to work with whoever is going to be chosen," he said.

However, Mulcair said, that could all change in the next three to four years and that Quebecers "can be sure that the NDP will be running in the next provincial election in Quebec — and that will change things, of course."

Even with the possibility of a sovereigntist government returning to power and Canadians looking to see what federal leader would best handle the situation, Mulcair vowed to stay out of the Quebec election.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brachina wrote:

 Jack wanted to build the winning conditions for Quebec to sign the constititution. Mulcair's positition is the exact same, hell Mulcair probably was the one to suggest it. One condition for Quebec to sign would be a government willing to work with the Federal NDP to build those conditions, the Federal NDP can't do it alone.

From afar it appears to me that there will never be "winning conditions" for Quebec to sign onto the current Constitution.  If that is a possibility then it is clearly a provincial issue that the federal party should not be involved in. I wish a provincial NPD success in convincing the people of Quebec that the current constitution is worth signing on to.  Personally it seems like tilting at windmills to me, but I then I live on the Left Coast.

If you are talking about an NDP federal government reopening the file and dealing with only Quebec issues then I suspect that will be political suicide in many parts of the country. Even in Quebec it will polarize the electorate and the NPD will stop being a voting option for independence minded voters. The thing about any change to a Constitution is that people will pick it apart until the entrails are laid bare and then compare it to an idealized perfect world. 

However if your "building the winning conditions" is code for reopening the constitutional file then you are talking about constitutional change and don't forget that it is not a two way game.  Whether or not the new strategists from Quebec want to ignore the current constitutional reality there will be 14 governments involved in any constitutional changes.

I presume that no matter which course is taken to Quebec signing on to the Constitution it would be the subject of a referendum in at least Quebec. Quite the minefield for the newly minted Official Opposition.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I presume that no matter which course is taken to Quebec signing on to the Constitution it would be the subject of a referendum in at least Quebec. Quite the minefield for the newly minted Official Opposition.

 

I agree. It won't happen in my lifetime. My guess is that Harper has driven Quebec further away than ever from the possibility.

reconnect

As much as I'm surprised that they're deciding to create a provincial party this soon, this was going to happen eventually; many of the issues that are most important to the NDP fall into provinvial jurisdiction. Also, no single party has managed to capture more than 1/3 of the vote, and 38% of Quebecers are still undecided. That said, I think what they're doing is risky as hell as we're still early into the election and we don't know how its going to play out...

 

Looking at the current polls (especially the recent Leger poll) it seems to me that the NDP is really trying to replace the Quebec Liberal Party, not QS. With the Liberals polling at 19% among Francophones (20 points back from the PQ), they're essentially facing one of the worst defeats in their history. I don't see how they'd hold onto any riding that wasn't at least 50-60% non-francophone. Charest also likely faces defeat in his own riding. And nevermind the report on collusion in the construction industry that will come out after the election....probably will be the last nails in the coffin. The findings of the commission had to be REALLY bad for Charest to call the election early...

 

The logic (as far as I can guess) seems to be that running as a federalist alternative to the (defunct) Liberals, the NDP could pick up substantial portions of the federalist pocket vote, and also make substantial inroads into francophone quebec by advocating for asymmetric federalism and center-left policies all-around. I really don't think that QS is the target here, even though they could get sideswiped, though that isn't much consolation. I don't think the infamous "beaver ad" had anything to do with it... Also, since the NDP leadership in now from Quebec (not just the leader) trying to pass this off as "the arrogant ROC telling us what to do" (I use "us" here as I'm a Quebecer) is simply wrong.

 

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Rebecca Blaikie on P&P just confirmed that the NDP has wanted to get a Quebec provincial party going since Mulcair first ran for them in Outremont.

Marty Patriquin reminded Blaikie that the progressive left in Quebec is sovereignist - and Blaikie got into a small argument with him on that score. Her evidence? The 58  MPs that the NDP now have in Quebec.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

reconnect wrote:
Looking at the current polls (especially the recent Leger poll) it seems to me that the NDP is really trying to replace the Quebec Liberal Party, not QS.

I would love to see that happen. Imagine the NDP wiping out the Liberals - both federally, and here in Quebec! Smile

Bärlüer

Boom Boom wrote:

Marty Patriquin reminded Blaikie that the progressive left in Quebec is sovereignist

He's right (speaking in broad terms). It's not a coincidence that most progressive parties past and present (RIN, Parti québécois [back then], various incarnations of the "left party" which has now culminated into QS, Option nationale) are or have been sovereignist.

Quote:
- and Blaikie got into a small argument with him on that score. Her evidence? The 58  MPs that the NDP now have in Quebec.

Stupid answer. If the conclusion she's getting from the election of 58 NDP MPs in Quebec is that voters somehow suddenly turned federalist, she has very poor political sense.

love is free love is free's picture

yeah, the argument that an npdq is looking to replace the plq is a pretty good one, with how fluid the situation seems, how weak are partisan identifications these days, and how the collapse of the utterly discredited plq will leave a good portion of the electorate without a natural home.  personally, i'd jump instantaneously from solidaire to npdq and i doubt that i'd ever look back.  mulcair and his team will have a lot of credibility going in, and would, i expect line up very well as a broad front alternative to the caq, with the pq and solidaire representing an increasinly marginal group for whom nationalism is basically important.

but it's sort of an insane risk to the federal party's position, in that it seems likely to fracture of a fairly broad coalition now characteristic of ndp support in the province.  and very certainly, we'll need a much better spokesperson than rebecca blaikie - i don't even know that i'd want her as a candidate in the province, so alien she seems to the province's political culture.  which also speaks to the fear that an ineffective ndp leader or an overly radical one could do immesurable harm to the federal brand.  a lot to think about.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Bärlüer wrote:

 

Quote:
- and Blaikie got into a small argument with him on that score. Her evidence? The 58  MPs that the NDP now have in Quebec.

Stupid answer. If the conclusion she's getting from the election of 58 NDP MPs in Quebec is that voters somehow suddenly turned federalist, she has very poor political sense.

Perhaps she was simply making the observation that last year Quebec voters had the option of voting BQ, and voted NDP instead. And perhaps both Mulcair and Blaikie (and others?)  think the NDP have a chance with those progressive voters in Quebec who are not sovereignist -  made me chuckle when I typed that. Laughing  But as someone else posted, maybe the NDP simply want to replace the Quebec Liberal party.

ETA: I think it was Evan Solomon who made the observation on P&P tonight that Mulcair really doesn't like Charest much. Laughing

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

This move could be an opportunity for QS supporters - move to a provincial party with national name recognition, and a party that most likely will do better in the polls than QS ever could.

And a party that will always be clearly to the right of QS and have far less commitment to social justice(as Mulcair's ban on federal NDP MP's offering support to the Quebec students proves).

It goes without saying that a largter, but less left, party really won't be worth having.

A Quebec "left" party that couldn't be in solidarity with the students could never fight for anyone else who's powerless.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I'm sorry, but I didn't know about Mulcair's ban on letting Quebec MP's back the students publicly until today and it shocks me.  How can you ban that and be left-of-center on anything ELSE?

It isn't as though anybody who voted NDP in 2011 federally in Quebec would be backing Charest on the tuition increase or on austerity.  Who the hell does he think that stance actually helps him with?

People who hate protest and protesters and who privilege "law and order" above struggling for social justice aren't going to have any non-reactionary views.

If the Quebec NDP forms and ends up being to the right of QS, will you still think it's worth having?

And if Mulcair's comments lead to QS being shut out of the National Assembly, will you still think rebuilding any sort of electoral left in Quebec will be possible in the future?  It's damn hard ro rebuild from totally nothing.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

How could Mulcair's comments result in QS being shut out of the NA? I don't get that at all.

ETA: so you're going to blame QS's potentially poor performance in the election on Mulcair? Now I see where this is going. Laughing

Brachina

Mulcair does not back the tuition increase, infact he wants to increase federal transferes for education to decrease tuition for everyone.

As for the Protest law, no one asked him what he thought of that so who knows what he thinks, although my gut tells me he is opposed.

As I said in the other thread creating a Quebec NDP would free the NDP to fight Charest and Legault, without the federal ndp stirring up a bees nest for interfering in Quebec Daily business. Its the only way the NDP can do both.

On another note some links

http://kaylehatt.ca/why-creating-the-nouveau-parti-democratique-du-quebe...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1244216--hebert-queb...

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I thought someone else would have posted this by now, but no, so here goes:

Hébert: Quebec election: Are Liberals about to follow their federal counterparts?
 
When Mulcair looks at the Quebec scene these days, he rightly spots the opportunity to place the missing provincial link in the NDP’s national chain in the vacuum that a historical Liberal defeat on Sept. 4 would create.

 

So, it looks like the NDP want to replace the Libs, not QS.

(cross posted to the other election thread)

Stockholm

love is free wrote:

y we'll need a much better spokesperson than rebecca blaikie - i don't even know that i'd want her as a candidate in the province, so alien she seems to the province's political culture.  which also speaks to the fear that an ineffective ndp leader or an overly radical one could do immesurable harm to the federal brand.  a lot to think about.

 

In case you didn't know, Rebecca Blaikie lived in Montreal for about 8 years, speaks French almost perfectly, was provincial secretary in Quebec and was single handedly responsible for a lot of the candidate recruitment and organization that set the stage for the Orange Crush...I think she may know more about Quebec's political culture than you give her credit for.

Pages