Anglo-Canadians' are terrified of the Bloc
This whole coalition thing has awaken the sleeping dog of Anglo-Canadians' fear of the Bloc. The outrage and terror expressed at "giving the SEPARATISTS" who want to "distroy the country" such "power" is really interesting. It shows that many Canadians are francophobes who can't read French and therefore have no idea what is going on in Quebec politics or what the Bloc stands for or the platfrom they were elected on. I have heard many people (including people on babble) claim that separatism is the "major plank" in their policy, etc. Anyone who even saw a Bloc ad in the last election knows this is not the case. There is probably more popular support for separation in Alberta than Quebec at this moment in history.
What I'm drawing attention to here is that despite many Canadians wanting "politics to be done differently" (i.e. sick of stupid partisanship) the campaign against the Bloc is largely based in othering - us against them; Real Canadians vs Evil Separatists.
Although Harper and his parrots call the NDP socialists (that worked so well for McCain) people from outside the CPC are quick to call the Bloc separatists. To me the Bloc is just as separatist as the NDP is socialist.
What are people's thoughts on this under-analysed current in the new coalition craze?
Comments
Is anyone bothered by how anti-sex is the use of the "in bed with" metaphor to denounce agreements between parties one would rather see at odds? Closet Puritans... who'd a thunk it?
remind wrote: Face it, if Canada is doing bad, so will Quebec. Thus it becomes a priority of Duceppe's to insure Canada does well.
Summer: I completely agree. .
And I agree too. In the past, Harper himself has acknowledged Quebec's particular and greater autonomy without resorting to words like 'separartist". Doing so now in his hour of desparation will come back to haunt him but its also just wrong - haven't we been so far beyond language like that for a long time?
However, this issue is that Quebec ain't going anywhere regardless of status vis-a-vis Canada. Autonomous province of Canada, sovereignty associated, or independent nation; Quebec needs a healthy and progressive Canada as a neighbour and trading partner.
Duceppe and Bloc have amply demonstrated this mature and pragmatic attitude often in past and it is in this spirit that they will suppprt the Lib-NDP coalition, and rid us all of Harper.
Anglo-Canadians aren't "terrified." Every election there's plenty of noise and some polls that indicate a good number outside Quebec would consider voting BQ if given the chance. What's happening now is Harper is in full desperation mode, slinging "seperatist" and "socialist" around like his political life dependend on it. Which it does.
My concern is that similar to that of yours, not everyone is agreeing. But I do believe some know what needs to be done. And I do believe that Duceppe and Layton will put partisan politics aside, and do what is correct for the good of Canada. Or what is in their power to do. If a strong non-partisan plan works, it will be of partisan benefit. Each party will wear the success, just as they would any failure.
I have no faith that Harper would do anything for the good of Canada, or even for his party for that matter. He is a one man show, and it is all about him. Canadians did not elect a dictator. Canadians do not want a dictator. The Dictator now has no shoes.
Moreover, given the current CPC infighting and the rise of Prentice and Baird for CPC leader campaigns, I would say that Harper does not even enjoy the confidence of his party, a fact that has gone unnoticed for the most part by the media, and by others here, let alone having the confidence of the rest of the House. And that fact, to me, says even more that Harper has to be gone.
Even a short term coalition would make that happen. The coalition is not going to be any worse for our economy than the CPC is going to be. In fact, they have a good shot at being better for the economy. And for making Canada a better place while doing it, instead of a worse place, under CPC dictates.
When things are gained, even if other concessions happen, then that would be still more that what would be possible under a Harper dictatorship, or even under a Liberal minority/majority, as the Cons would support them in a minority situation, if it screwed over the working class. And again, people who do not realize this simple fact, are short sighted. So, if they choose to be alientated because of their being short sighted...well...then they are throwing away a gift of a type that has not come along for 40 years.
No reason to believe the Conservatives will come out of this stronger. In fact they could come out of this an even bigger loser. Moreover, if the economy gets better, they would have said they did it, and their majority would have happened.
The cup is now half full, it is no longer half empty.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
No shame indeed. Especially when this fool was all about the separation of western canada. What hypocrites the Cons are. Out the door with them, asap!
I agree with much of what has been written.
The Bloq's mandate is essentially to represent the interests of Quebec until such time as the PQ can garner a vote on separation.
They cannot in any way force separation from the House of Commons and that is not part of their plan.
Yelling SEPARATIST will only piss off quebeckers.
BA is right that they are good MPs who have a focus on Quebec as that is their constituency just as Reform/Alliance represented Alberta.
They see how dangerous Harper is just as much as the rest of us.
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
I dunno. If someone calls someone else a jerk, do you assume they're anti-masturbation?
Harper's berszerk rantings about separatists and socialists are reminding me of John McCain going nuts attacking Obama for being a socialist etc... a lot of good that did him!
This will end up coming back at him when the clown boy has to defend his PM position - again. The people of Quebec who voted Bloc will not be happy about how they are being described by this asshole.
Anyone have some Tide? I really think this stain on Canada needs a strong remover.
It may just be my feverish imagination, but didn't Duceppe say yesterday the Conservatives are now finished in Quebec?
Go to hell Unionist
Thanks, BA, I needed that!
Now, back to the love-in.
Well, in a weird way this whole deal is going to seal that deal. 
For the Bloq to directly influence the Government takes away one of the main arguments used by the Conservatives, that voting for the Bloq is uttterly useless. 
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
Anyone have some Tide? I really think this stain on Canada needs a strong remover.
This is just the analogy we need. This isn't about ushering in socialism or democracy or utopia or peace or solving the economic crisis. It's about throwing some arrogant bastard out of your house when he has just gone beyond any civilized norms. And it's about everyone feeling great that they can do it together.
That is absolutely good enough for me. A little victory, something to build on. It's a little bit like the Obama thing (though I don't want to stretch the analogy). People felt great; they still do. But there must be no illusions. To describe it as a defeat, or a fraud, or as a danger not worth the risk, is to be unable to distinguish between movement and paralysis.
Go with the Tide! Out, out damned spot!
Thank you as always, Stargazer.
Didn't hear that but would NOT doubt it.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
what if Harper actually Does want to divide up the country, along the lines of Security and Prosperity Partnership regions, and irritating people in Quebec is a key goal here for him, as Wilf hinted at above.?
Harper seems to be very good at inflaming his own constituents' worst emotions, and those of others as well.
"didn't Duceppe say yesterday the Conservatives are now finished in Quebec?"
Dunno but if he did, he was whistling in the dark. There is still a sizable anti-sovereignist contingent in these parts - not all of them Anglos either - and although embarrassed to no end by Mr. Harper's performance, they really like his BQ-bashing.
Does anyone recall that the Bloc was formed by a Conservative cabinet minister, Lucien Bouchard, who, himslef, was a separatist recruited by Mulroney (along with others)?
Does anyone recall that Stephen Harper was a Western separatist (build a firewall around Alberta)?
It seems if anyone is afraid of separatists the Cons are not the party to support.
The out-and-out thievery perpetrated by the Grits had brought the Cons some of the federalist vote in Quebec, but that window of opportunity is closing fast. Oh Julie Couillard, see what you've done...!
Well then, LeighT, won't some Canadians be the fools for wanting Harper to stay in power, or to be anywhere near the government, if they are against any separation movement. Or even more the fool for voting for him! They have no one else to blame other than themselves, the 37.7% who voted for him, I am speaking about here, plus those who see the cooperation between the majority MP's, as being wrong. And people are just as foolish for buying into a notion of a leader being it all, and other pure party politics that serve no purpose in a crisis situation, as opposed to supporting representative parliamental democracy, the system which Canada has.
This cooperative government is the face of the reality of proportional representation, if it would be implimented in Canada. If we currently had a PR system this is what the resulting coalition government would have looked like, with an added GP component.
All the more reason for the majority cooperative government to commence immediately. It is time for people to realize we have had a MINORITY government in 3 successive elections, and things would be no different in a fourth, at a total cost of 1.2 billion dollars, and it is time for the MP's to work in cooperation, not in alienation into "otherness".
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
From this morning's Globe:
But Mr. Duceppe's comments that the coalition could help his sovereigntist cause left some Liberals and New Democrats red-faced.
“I think that Layton and Dion won't change, they're federalists and I'm a sovereigntist,” Mr. Duceppe told reporters. “I think every gain we're making here is good for Quebec, and what's good for Quebec is good for a sovereign Quebec.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081202.wparliament03/BNStory/politics/home
What else do people expect Duceppe to say? Especially just days before a Quebec election. Was he supposed to say "I hereby renounce any commitment to Quebec sovereignty - I love Canada"?
what if Harper actually Does want to divide up the country, along the lines of Security and Prosperity Partnership regions, and irritating people in Quebec is a key goal here for him, as Wilf hinted at above.?
Harper seems to be very good at inflaming his own constituents' worst emotions, and those of others as well.
This is interesting. It certainly would explain his seeming obliviousness to everything he's doing right now. It's true, he's creating a crisis - for what? As some I've talked to have noted, "he's not THAT stupid," suggesting that there's something going on that we can't immediately see.
I have no faith that Harper would do anything for the good of Canada, or even for his party for that matter. He is a one man show, and it is all about him. Canadians did not elect a dictator. Canadians do not want a dictator. The Dictator now has no shoes.
Moreover, given the current CPC infighting and the rise of Prentice and Baird for CPC leader campaigns, I would say that Harper does not even enjoy the confidence of his party, a fact that has gone unnoticed for the most part by the media, and by others here, let alone having the confidence of the rest of the House. And that fact, to me, says even more that Harper has to be gone.
I agree that Harper needs to go. I wrote to my MP last night (yes a Conservative) and told him that as long as Steven Harper is leader of the CPC I will not even consider the CPC in an election. Harper cannot be trusted and therefore the CPC cannot be trusted. The non-confidence extends beyond the House. There needs to be enough internal pressure to force him to quit. I suspect that if Harper is ousted the CPC will crumble... they don't have an alternate leader either...
From this morning's Globe:
But Mr. Duceppe's comments that the coalition could help his sovereigntist cause left some Liberals and New Democrats red-faced.
“I think that Layton and Dion won't change, they're federalists and I'm a sovereigntist,” Mr. Duceppe told reporters. “I think every gain we're making here is good for Quebec, and what's good for Quebec is good for a sovereign Quebec.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081202.wparliament03/BNStory/politics/home
I think this comment has been widely misinterpreted and spun. It is a simple statement of fact. The Bloq has not given up their dream of a Quebec nation, yet in the meantime anything positive that happens is good for Quebec whether Quebec remains in Canada or not. At least that is how I take it.
Given Mr Harper's attacks on Quebec and the Bloc, I doubt most Quebecers would believe him again if he said he was as concerned with Quebecers as he clearly is with westerners.
This is a Confederation. An assemblage of provinces, with a national government. Many of the hard decisions are left to each province, with common interest items like defence, etc, left to the federal government.
Any provincial party/government, after a fashion, is sovereignist. That government looks out for their province and fights the feds for more money. That is the Canadian way.
The fact that Quebecers needed their own party to defend their interests (or felt they did, and given the history of the old Conservative Party and the Libs, they probably did) just shows that the national parties lost the confidence of the people of Quebec.
The fact that the Bloc stepped up to support a coalition government, with the best interests of Canada in mind, should show (notwithstanding the bluster and rhetoric of Mr Duceppe) that the Bloc could be evolving into a regional party well suited to defending Quebec interests IN government (on the sidelines true, but vowing to support a consensus economic and social policy).
Kind of like the Reform Party or "Canadian Alliance" represented western interests (and still does, masquerading as the Conservative Party of Canada).
Why is it okay for the west to have a regional party, but not anywhere else?
As an Ontarian, I don't feel that we have a "right to rule". I do believe in democracy though. That being said, I a shocked at the reaction out west to this loss of confidence in Mr Harper.
How the heck did this become a "national unity crisis"? The fact that the bulk of the Cons come from out west and feel entitled to rule the rest and take that away and they act like a kid having his toy taken away.
Talk of "western separatism" being on the rise if this "illegal" (not illegal actually) government change takes place is galling. They want to separate if they can't dictate to the east? Sound familiar to what they are alleging will happen if the coalition goes ahead?
I support the coalition and the natural course of Canadian parliamentary government. Lose the confidence of the house and a no-confidence motion, lose your opportunity to govern! It is about time Canada started doing this, instead of wasting 300 million dollars every time a PM wants to break the fixed date election law, call an election and government shop, in the hope of getting a majority before the stuff hits the fan on the economy!
You're correct BA, and it is very close to what I stated earlier, which was; if it is good for Canada, it is good for Quebec. As at this point in time, Quebec's fortunes are tied to that of Canada, so what would be bad for Canada, would be extremely bad for Quebec. Thus Duceppe, in his mandate to do what is best for Quebec, inadvertently, as a separatist, has to do what is best for Canada.
And summer is still propaganda shedding, I see for the CPC.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
And summer is still propaganda shedding, I see for the CPC.
___________________________________________________________
Not at all. I simply posted a quote from a newspaper. I'm very firmly in the anyone but conservative camp and would rather have a shaky coalition than have the Cons in power.
I just think it's best not to kid ourselves that it is anything but a shaky coalition on very unsteady ground. The Bloc, for now, has given its word that it will vote with the NDP/Libs on confidence matters for the next 18 months. But if 6, 9, 12 months from now, the Bloc decides that their interests are better served by voting against the coalition, I believe they will do so.
What happens when the Libs have their convention (is it still on?) and Iggy (or whoever) replaces Dion? This could happen in April or May I think. Will the coaltion still work?
I am disgusted with Harper's willingness to create a re-birth of support for seperation just to cling to power. What a complete and utter ass.
This show of solifdified non-confidence will stop Harper's actions dead, nothing else will.
People should be spending this afternoon writing to the media demanding time be given to the majority official opposition, if Harper is being given time tonight, and not purchasing it. If they do not, they are in breach of democracy and are working to destroy Canada as much as Harper is.. if Harper has purchased time then people should be donating money to the coalition parties so that they can purchase time.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
I think we're just looking at it differently. I think that the future is more important than the immediate. I think it's important to consider the consequences and decide whether it will ultimately be better or worse. Yes, the idea of a coaltion is very exciting (look at all the babble topics about it!). And yes, it would be fantastic to be rid of Harper. BUT, I am not convinced that Harper will resign as leader and I also don't think there is much anyone can do about the economy. Times are going to get worse before they get better.
I don't think that pointing out challenges is akin to undermining the coalition. Would you prefer that I pick up some pom-poms and a blind fold and simply cheer them on?
Only one brand of propaganda dissemination is acceptable to some, so the answer I believe, would be yes. The alternative is to risk being called out as a CPC shill, or heaven forbid, of having some hidden agenda. Its funny how it works though.
Two well-known PQists Dubuc and Lavoilette are happy that Duceppe has put his "leftist" background ahead of his "nationalist" mandate. Their interesting goal, in their last book, is a neutral Quebec. like Mexico, with a small army, and no ties to NATO or NORAD. English Canada, they see, is very proud of its military and was "born" in a battle killing Germans who posed no threat to us. As General Lewis Mackenzie confirmed to me in a radio call-in show (Montreal) Canadian soldiers, per capita of our small population, have killed more enemy than most countries. And our "humanitarian" UN-sponsored "mission" in Afghanistan has considerably more support the ROC than here.
And Harper is not what is going to be good for the the future, under any circumstances. In particular not good for Canadian women.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Only one brand of propaganda dissemination is acceptable to some, so the answer I believe, would be yes. The alternative is to risk being called out as a CPC shill, or heaven forbid, of having some hidden agenda. Its funny how it works though.
Ah yes, the famous, "you're either with us, or with the other guys" bit. Popular tool of false dichotomoy/logical fallacy makers everywhere. 
Ah, summer, aligning yourself with someone whose sole purpose here is to attack another poster obliquely, as apparently they lack the courage to do it otherwise, indicates even further where your head is at, say nothing of your anti-progressive contencious positions on women's rights that you have stated here before.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
And Harper is not what is going to be good for the the future, under any circumstances. In particular not good for Canadian women.
Uh, yeah. I agree with you. That doesn't mean that I think the coaltion will succeed in vanquishing the evil Harper.
I fully believe that if Harper had it his way I would have no shoes or socks and I would be making muffins from scratch as we speak.
I also fear that there are enough Canadians that think that the Cons are best equipped to deal with the economy and that do not think Harper is as evil as we do. This coupled with the coalition will likely send us into another election at some point in the near future and has the makeup to give us a conservative majority.
Anyway, I don't think you get where I'm coming from - you've dismissed me as shedding for the cons (do you mean shilling, by the way?) and you're not likely to back down. I know that a lot of people think that Harper's not that bad because sadly, many of my friends and colleagues, are in that camp. So, I will continue to post and link to various media as I think it's better to know and discuss what the other side is saying than to live in ignorant bliss. You can continue to dismiss my posts by calling my a shed/shedder/whatever (or a shill)
Of course, nodding along in subservience to the present doctrine will certainly spare you a little grief. I’ve been called worst for straying beyond the obligatory mind meld, i.e. war criminal, collaborator, etc, so I can tell you from experience that it’s a wiser use of time to pick and choose with whom you will interact with on the board. But yes, I wouldn’t get caught too often being seen in agreement with anything I’ve said. No good will come of it.
Why don't Conservatives need government subsidies.
Well I know of one Conservative politician that after having won the election, employed his lead campaigner with tax payers money. Now on the government payroll,this person's first assignment was to hunt for the party donations. After having completed paying for the past election, he was then inform to start amassing money and campaigning for the next one.
Maybe Conservatives are not against all subsidies, but just want to limit them for the party holding power. And just maybe this is what all the fuss is about.
Anglo and franco phones should be terrified of CPC supporters and government, apparently Nathan Cullen's riding office was fre bombed last night! can we say terrorist loud enough?
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
er...what?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
Ya that was just after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour. Come on, Ken!!
Oh. so Bluto Blutarski is now a babbler? Who'd a thunk it?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
The other problem with this thread is that it only speaks of "Anglo-Canadians". What about the views of their bitter rivals, the Saxon-Canadians?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly
I think I'm Anglo-Franco-Saxo with some other people thrown in for good measure, or something. But I fear the Harpers more than Blocquistas.
It might be a good idea to start talking about who the Quebec ministers would be in a Coalition cabinet. This would help show voters that the Bloc would not be in the cabinet. (Not that it would bother me if they were, but it's a matter of being clear on what's on the table.)
So, Quebec babblers, tell us what you think.
Assume they are going to dispense with Ministers of State, and have a larger cabinet but a smaller ministry: 29 ministers, rather than Harper’s 38. From the West nine, Ontario nine, Quebec seven, Atlantic four.
Seven from Quebec: six Liberals:
Denis Coderre
Irwin Cotler
Marlene Jennings
Marcel Proulx
Pablo Rodriguez
Bernard Patry or Stéphane Dion or Justin Trudeau or Raymonde Folco or Francis Scarpaleggia
NDP:
Thomas Mulcair
From the West five Liberals:
Ralph Goodale (Saskatchewan)
Ujjal Dosanjh (BC)
Joyce Murray (BC)
Senator Claudette Tardif (Alberta)
Anita Neville (Manitoba)
Four New Democrats:
Dawn Black (BC)
Nathan Cullen (BC)
Linda Duncan (Alberta)
Judy Wasylicia-Leis (Manitoba)
Ontario:
Seven Liberals:
Michael Ignatieff
Bob Rae
Gerard Kennedy
Martha Hall Findlay
John McCallum
Ken Dryden
Carolyn Bennett or Judy Sgro or Ruby Dhalla
Two New Democrats:
Jack Layton
Joe Comartin or Charlie Angus
Atlantic provinces: Liberals:
Dominic LeBlanc (NB)
Scott Brison (NS)
Wayne Easter (PEI)
Todd Russell (Nfld & Lab.)
The other problem with this thread is that it only speaks of "Anglo-Canadians". What about the views of their bitter rivals, the Saxon-Canadians?
Yeah, and remember both groups were defeated by the William the conquorer (he built the tower of london).
(if it wasn't for that the english language would sound like a cross between dutch and danish).
He was a norman who came from oooooooppps FRANCE!
Time for english speakers to get over their zenophobia, I think.
We are all the same, Britain has 3 other surviving native languages, angle and sächsisch are not among them. Sächsisch is a dialect spoken in the Colditz, Dresden region of Germany. Believe it or not, the accent sounds remarkably like a countryside (farm) accent in south west England!
(You rarely hear these accents on tv except in comedy but they are common around the Gloucester area of England). I worked in Gloucester.
(I worked (in german) with an old guy from Colditz about 20 years ago).
Yup, We are all the same, A bit of extra culture is not going to hurt us.
Dosanjh is extremely partizan, I like him but I do not know how that will work. I think him and Fry are very capable but VERY partizan too. They are in very tight seats too where a ministry could make the difference.
But putting in an NDP hater might not make for good will in the voting community.
Denice Sovoe would make a great minister in environmental or housing issues. Problem with her is she is unassailable. Minister or not, she will win again. I am used to coalitions and how the strategy goes in STV, I guess it is a lot different in first past the post. A lot more chance and guesswork involved.
Brian
From the West five Liberals:
Ralph Goodale (Saskatchewan)
Ujjal Dosanjh (BC)
Joyce Murray (BC)
Senator Claudette Tardif (Alberta)
Anita Neville (Manitoba)
Four New Democrats:
Dawn Black (BC)
Nathan Cullen (BC)
Linda Duncan (Alberta)
Judy Wasylicia-Leis (Manitoba)
Ontario:
Seven Liberals:
Michael Ignatieff
Bob Rae
Gerard Kennedy
Martha Hall Findlay
John McCallum
Ken Dryden
Carolyn Bennett or Judy Sgro or Ruby Dhalla
Two New Democrats:
Jack Layton
Joe Comartin or Charlie Angus
Atlantic provinces: Liberals:
Dominic LeBlanc (NB)
Scott Brison (NS)
Wayne Easter (PEI)
Todd Russell (Nfld & Lab.)
All this started with Harper lying to the Canadian public. and then using the ctv television network to promote the lies. He created division in the country for a purpose. Most here have the brains to figure this out. Unfortunately the majority of Canadians DON'T and rely on media to educate them. In this case they had country-dividing lies shoved down their throats and they swallowed every bit of it.
Now if the message was Harper is a lying power hungry maniac bent on destroying the country at any cost including but not limited to treason, espionage ,bribery etc. The reaction would be a lot different.
You would think tho that Canadians would put pieces together and ask themselves questions like "Why did they make a conservative media hack a senator"? or ‘Why is it when conservatives sleep with the bloc it is promoted as a national unity thing but when someone else does it's seperatism"? I have totally given up on Canadian intelligence when it comes to these matters. Whatever the media tells them is what they follow and believe like real sheep. Hence the term "sheeple"...
I used to think we were one notch better than the gullible USA...Harper has proved we are even more gullible...at least the US has tossed there Neocon leader out on his ass. Canada is still waiting for the TV to tell them to do the same here...just utterly pathetic.
All this started with Harper lying to the Canadian public. and then using the ctv television network to promote the lies. He created division in the country for a purpose. Most here have the brains to figure this out. Unfortunately the majority of Canadians DON'T and rely on media to educate them. In this case they had country-dividing lies shoved down their throats and they swallowed every bit of it.
Now if the message was Harper is a lying power hungry maniac bent on destroying the country at any cost including but not limited to treason, espionage ,bribery etc. The reaction would be a lot different.
You would think tho that Canadians would put pieces together and ask themselves questions like "Why did they make a conservative media hack a senator"? or ‘Why is it when conservatives sleep with the bloc it is promoted as a national unity thing but when someone else does it's seperatism"? I have totally given up on Canadian intelligence when it comes to these matters. Whatever the media tells them is what they follow and believe like real sheep. Hence the term "sheeple"...
I used to think we were one notch better than the gullible USA...Harper has proved we are even more gullible...at least the US has tossed there Neocon leader out on his ass. Canada is still waiting for the TV to tell them to do the same here...just utterly pathetic.
Buddy Kat, I understand your frustration, but don't blame Canadian intelligence. The TV has convinced you that Canadians love Harper and hate the coalition notion etc. But the fact remains that a very substantial majority of Canadians voted against Harper and his policies, and it was the bought-and-paid-for Governor-General who chose, very deliberately, not to allow the House to vote when it was already scheduled to do so.
The fact that Canadians didn't have a single party to place their confidence in has more to say about our FPTP system and the inadequacies of the parties themselves.
In short, I would blame just about everyone except Canadian voters for the current state of affairs.
Having said that, to return to Wilf's question, when I look at the list of usual suspects that you have assembled, it's hard to get enthusiastic about picking a cabinet. I understand your point about showing graphically that the Bloc isn't there, but I have never shared the fairly common view on this board that most Canadians hate Quebeckers and/or react in knee-jerk fashion in opposition to anything called "separatist". Once again, I give Canadians far more credit than that. I think Canadians would be far more willing to see Gilles Duceppe in a coalition cabinet than the Bloc itself would.
I think you're quite right, as to the majority of people I know. And I suspect the majority in Ontario and Atlantic Canada would be more open to Gilles Duceppe in a coalition cabinet than the Bloc itself would. Out west, maybe not.
Actually, I'm really just wondering who are the most likely six Quebec Liberal MPs to get cabinet positions.
"Any provincial party/government, after a fashion, is sovereignist. That government looks out for their province and fights the feds for more money. That is the Canadian way. "
And that's why provincial powers should be downgraded, making political power more centralized and getting rid of this hodgepodge of backdoor deals between provinces seeking individual gains, often at the cost of the rest of the country.
Being Canadian but having grown up in Europe, I find it difficult to accept the idea that a party advocating Quebec independence should even be in Parliament. It makes no difference to me if you are of French, Hindu or Scottish origin. At some point, I think that we will have decide if we are Canadian above all else and put the welfare of the entire country before the interests of individual provinces. As it stands, I think we are still more of a colony than a country.
If the current system persists, or is popularly preferred, then the hell with the federation. At least we'll save ourselves a tax and the annual bullshit debates over the status of Quebec.
At some point, I think that we will have decide if we are Canadian above all else and put the welfare of the entire country before the interests of individual provinces.
Would you abolish municipal governments as well? What about Aboriginal self-government - are you tired of those annual debates as well? Should they decide if they are "Canadian above all else" too? And if not, what - the rest of us go back to Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.?
I'm not sure what it means to say that one is "Canadian above all else". I am a number of things above being Canadian - human being and worker spring to mind. If being Canadian above all else means I have to close my eyes to the legitimate aspirations of people for self-determination and not to be bullied and bossed around, then I would proudly proclaim myself "Canadian below all else". But I don't think being Canadian means that.
Why do you not hold the concept of the Canadian State to the same reasoning that you have given to the provinces? I think that at some point we have to decide if we are Earthlings above all else and put the welfare of the entire planet before the interests of individual states, corporations or species.
I didn't use the word abolish anywhere. The scope of provincial powers could and should be minimized and a uniform standard should be available throughout the country with powers centralized in Ottawa. I would also be ecstatic to see the governor general shipped off and the absence of all 'royal' epithets, as well as the removal of the Queen from our money. In my view, the only self-determination that should matter is that of Canada and not the viral, parochial regionalism that has been the status quo since the colonial age. At the very least, we might get rid of the Bouchard, Klein, Duceppe type of demagogues that feed off the present system.
Being a human being and worker first, you should have no problem in any restructuring of the political system within these borders, or any others for that matter.
Le T, I'm still attached to the concept of states. I'm not a believer in global government, or of the uniform amero-culture that sells itself as the dominant model for a new international culture. That's not to say that I don't believe we should put the welfare of our planet first, or that we should abandon the fight for human rights - only that the globalist model for these fights, imo, is a farce and a smokescreen for global government under an oligarchical cabal of mutinationals and bankers.
"Actually, I'm really just wondering who are the most likely six Quebec Liberal MPs to get cabinet positions."
Who says there would be six Liberal MPs from Quebec in cabinet? I suppose that it would make send that out of a total cabinet of 24 - one quarter or six should be from Quebec - but since NDP MP Tom Mulcair is certain to be one of the 6 NDP cabinet ministers in that scenario - there would probably be 5 Liberals from Quebec - who they would be is quite predictable: Cotler, Coderre, Dion, maybe Marlene Jennings, maybe Pablo Rodriguez and maybe Marcel Proulx that reptile from Hull etc...
Being a human being and worker first, you should have no problem in any restructuring of the political system within these borders, or any others for that matter.
No problem at all. For many issues that concern people's daily lives, I would like to see far more power and resources devolve to local and regional entities.
Given your obvious scorn for the right of the Québec people to self-determination, however, which youappear to relegate to "demagoguery", I would consult you about the restructuring but I definitely wouldn't put you in charge of it.
Which leaves unanswered my question about Aboriginal peoples. Should they, too, decide whether they are "Canadians above all else"? Serious question.
À ce moment-là, panhead, je comprends que vous acceptez de poursuivre cette conversation en français?
Quebec is a nation, not a "region". You are advocating "amero-culture", that is the English-language variety, not the French, Spanish or Portuguese, any of the Aboriginal cultures or Creole cultures which have developed in the Americas.
Suspect you are one of those anti-Québécois bigots who come along from time to time under cover of "universalism" and "Canadian self-determination", to destroy our culture and society.
I am uncomfortable with any intervention about which parties do not deserve to sit in Parliament. That is the beginning of the end of democracy and a surefire recipe for armed struggle by the disempowered.
How do you fit the numbers needed into a cabinet of 24? The West needs to be well-represented. I can't make it work. The coalition agreement provides for 24 plus the PM, but contemplates another four being added: 3 more Liberals and one more New Democrat. That works better for everyone. So 29: 9 west, 9 Ontario, 7 Quebec, 4 Atlantic.
The first question is Dion. He is not in the Liberal shadow cabinet. Is he expected to retire from politics?
Marlene Jennings for sure: as Deputy House Leader, she ranks high.
Pablo Rodriguez is critic for the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, and represents everywhere east of Montreal. But he's in a Montreal riding, you say? Yes, but he's a Sherbrooke boy, like Jean Charest, went to University there and started his career there, became President of the Young Liberals of Canada (Quebec), and then presided over the Liberal Party of Canada (Québec section), with contacts across the province.
Marcel Proulx is their only MP from outside the Montreal area. He's been in the House 10 years, and before that was 1993, Mr. Proulx became political assistant and then director of operations for Marcel Massé, the then MP, and in 1997 when Mr. Massé was President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Proulx became his Chief of Staff. Being a veteran counts for something.
But the sixth would be who? If not Dion, maybe Patry, Garneau, Scarpaleggia, Trudeau?
Keep Dion out of your cabinet. He is incompetent, unprincipled, and justifiably hated by many Quebeckers.
Re the thread title and Le T's question in the OP: "What are people's thoughts on this under-analysed current in the new coalition craze?"
Claims of being "terrified" of the people you are bashing for short-term view, self-interested reasons are rather par for the course (e.g. Israel's treatment of Palestinians).
Buddy Kat, I understand your frustration, but don't blame Canadian intelligence. The TV has convinced you that Canadians love Harper and hate the coalition notion etc. But the fact remains that a very substantial majority of Canadians voted against Harper and his policies, and it was the bought-and-paid-for Governor-General who chose, very deliberately, not to allow the House to vote when it was already scheduled to do so.
The fact that Canadians didn't have a single party to place their confidence in has more to say about our FPTP system and the inadequacies of the parties themselves.
In short, I would blame just about everyone except Canadian voters for the current state of affairs.
Well I don't see any evidence of free thinking Canadians anywhere out here in western Canada I just see sheeple that follow each other and get their directions from the media period. Here is an example: Look at Alberta, the media is so pro conservative that the people there will vote for a stick wearing a blue tie with a pull cord that says" I'm conservative and you are a dummy" and they will vote for it. It's true and it's because the media tells them too, simple as that. That is a valid point that the majority find Harper and his neocon values distasteful, hence the reason a coalition scares him death..it represents the real majority.
In Saskatchewan they vote on how a person looks for crying out loud, like a frigging beauty contest. Any little tory brochure that comes in the mail is treated like the gospel...despite the propaganda and lies...it really is sad to see. I would like to believe the majority of Canadians got something between their ears other than tory propaganda but I don't see it out west , that's for sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=userUnionist, it would be far easier I think, if all nations within the federation held referendums about whether or not they want to be part of Canada. If not, they can go on their merry way and become sovereign entities. Those who do, should enter a political restructuring, as lagatta correctly identified, along the lines of the American model.
I think it's the only possibility for a modicum of national independence both from the UK and the Americans. Not only would we avoid the ludicrous state of paying parliament members who are only there to further their own goal of sovereignty, but we would also finally get rid of the militant dichotomy between French and English.
Of course, this is just an opinion. As a Greek-Canadian, I have no problem reconciling myself to my cultural heritage and to my Canadian identity, such as it is if you live in Quebec.
And lagatta, I assume that by referring to Quebec as a nation, you mean the francophone Canadian citizens that reside in Quebec and do not attach some territorial delineation to the concept, since as we all know, Quebec is comprised of more than one nation that might choose to seek self-determination, even sans Bloc.
lagatta, you might also consider muzzling your comments/suspicions a little bit too, since this is an online discussion between strangers who really know jack shit about each other, but are just voicing opinions and ideas. I'm sure your views might seem infallible to yourself, but if you peek outside your window you're bound to bump into millions who don't necessarily agree.
Since when do I support the (US) American model?
No, I mean Québec society, not just the descendants of Tremblays and Bouchards. For example, Amir Khadir is not particularly an "old-stock" or "pure-laine" Québécois, nor is Maria Mourani.
Yes, there are several Aboriginal nations in Québec. At least 11, I'll have to check on the number. They are utterly entired to self-determination.
I don't give a flying frig whether you agree with me.
I have no problem accepting it. And neither do most countries in Europe have any objection to separatist parties sitting in their legislatures. That's democracy eh?
Lagatta, you know about Italy right? Don't they have a semi-sovereigntist party in government now (yeah, the Northern League is/was a bunch of creeps and racists, quite unlike the Bloc, but the question speaks to Europeans being open to parties that talk about looser federations and sovereignty on Bloc lines).
"No, I mean Québec society"
Despite Khadir and Mourani, the majority of ethnic minorities consistently vote for a federalist cause. It's highly misleading to suggest that Quebec society on a whole is supportive of French first policies. The majority of the support for sovereignty finds its base among the so called old stock francophones, and like the Northern League, or any other nationalist struggles, despite attempts at expanded inclusion, the sovereign cause in Quebec is still rooted in ethnic and linguistic nationalism.
This might be a productive sentiment in a largely homogenous nation, but in a Canada which is a tapestry of cultures, I find the idea antiquated and distasteful, which are both inferior sentiments to the guarantee of a highly decentralized federation which will never be in a position to exercise its self-determination. As I said, if Canadians prefer this route, then Quebec should claim its sovereign status along with any other takers. If not, then faux progressive parties like the Bloc should be removed from Canadian Parliament as they obviously hold no allegiance for the institution, the people it represents, or the flag it flies. The seperatist cause has been defeated on two different occasions and in my opinion, it's time to move on instead of harping on emotional strings that offer no practical results. We are an overtaxed nation as it is, I don't think we need to be spending these billions on this massive governmental system that has proved itself ineffective, especially when the money could be better spent on medicare or the environment instead of financing the Kleins and Quebec trips to Europe where they get to play nation state.
Well, no, if people vote for them they get into parliament. I think sinn fein are in government in northern ireland right now. And they also have some members of parliament in the south. It is easy to forget that they (the IRA ) were not just at war with the British 30 years ago, the were at war with the Repulbic of Ireland too. "free staters" was their term for us. but enough people voted for them that they ocasionally got members of parliament in the south.
As they give up violence and after a suitable period of time to prove it, I have no doubt that sinn fein will gather more votes in the republic and eventually be part of a coalition government in the south.
Now the Quebec party are not killing people, they just use political means, so it would be totally unjust to prevent them from taking their seats. In a democracy, you have to accept that other people are allowed to vote as they please and you have to accept the results of the votes.
I want better democracy so I campaign for pro rep in canada. In pro rep, whatever number of MP's the bloq get will be the right number. They might get more, they might get less. Depends on how the party changes and sells itself.
If the people of quebec decide to leave Canada, they the right to go and we have the duty to let them.
Thats being Canadian and being civilized.
"Being Canadian but having grown up in Europe, I find it difficult to accept the idea that a party advocating Quebec independence should even be in Parliament. .
If the current system persists, or is popularly preferred, then the hell with the federation. At least we'll save ourselves a tax and the annual bullshit debates over the status of Quebec.
Indeed, an angryphone! Ha!
"French first"? That is Le Front national, not the PQ, the BQ, and certainly not my party, Québec solidaire.
The Northern League (Lega Nord) is indeed an autonomist party, but it is an autonomist party supporting the richest part of Italy, more like the Alberta separatist types - though there is more historical basis to the different regions in Italy, and also very much an anti-immigrant and rightwing party, more akin to ADQ, though much farther right. Of course they have the right to sit, though.
I have no interest whatsoever in arguing with anti-Québécois bigots. Go fuck yourself.
( Except the leadership of the bloq who signed an agreement to elect him as prime minister!).
I'm not a bigot, nor am I anti Quebecois. I'm expressing a point of view without the intent to insult anyone, nor with any disrespect to others.
I think that perhaps, you might need to follow your own advice in your closing statement lagatta as it might alleviate some of your obvious frustration.
( Except the leadership of the bloq who signed an agreement to elect him as prime minister!).
A remarkable development that sailed right by many English-speaking Canadians. A tribute to Duceppe putting, um, Canada ahead of party.
What are people's thoughts on this under-analysed current in the new coalition craze?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CPC play this to the francophobe population - which just happens to be one of their supporting social groups. But, then, who ever accused them of being open-minded progressives?
The francophobes seem to mostly live in Alberta, and they are Harper's base.
We just laugh it off, but it is still a live hatred with them, and very ugly, imo.
Harper's dance between his francophobe supporters and his need for support in Quebec is at least a bit 'amusant', but in reality, his pandering to ethnic bigotry makes me want to ....!!!
Well, I find your entire post distasteful. The idea that people can't vote for whoever they like for parliament is totalitarianism, pure and simple.
"Quebec should claim its sovereign status..."
Uh, OK.
They already have ... at least in the French version. It didn't make it into the English version though. All those darn complications with Aboriginal title and rights to the land ... 'terra nullius' it was not ... kinda threw a monkey wrench into the 'separation' idea, so sovereignty was born and has already been declared.
It just remains to work out the details, but I don't se anyone rushing to do that.
And I haven't noticed the sky falling ...
"The idea that people can't vote for whoever they like for parliament is totalitarianism, pure and simple. "
It's really not a totalitarian sentiment. Voting for the Bloc is not dissimilar to choosing to vote for a foreign party to sit in Canadian parliament imo.
Simply for the reason that the party has interests that are entirely seperate from parliament and the nation it represents. I'm not denying anyone their right to a democratic process, only stating that there is a fine line between that process and travesty which we seem to have already crossed.
I would have no objection to such a party sitting in the national assembly of Quebec if it is ever sovereign, as long as it was elected. Until then, it only seems logical to me that all members of parliament who are payed by ALL Canadian taxpayers should at least pretend to have the best interests of ALL Canadians at heart, be they new immigrants, first nations, or anyone else, and not just the proponents of regional nationalist ambitions.
You mean, they should follow your example?
This is very funny. While I'm not a Bloc supporter and have never voted for the party (I've always "wasted" my federal vote on the NDP), my first memories of Gilles Duceppe were of working on union organising drives at Montréal hospitals, and then hotels. In workplaces that were overwhelmingly "immigrant", including many "new immigrants", fighting for fair pay and respectful working conditions for these people.
Duceppe has also been very vociferous about the deplorable living conditions of Aboriginal people here, in particular of an Alqonquin band in northwestern Québec enduring Third-World living conditions.
The Scottish National Party has 7 MPs in the UK parliament, by the way.
Even more hilarious is the notion that MPs must have "the best interests of all Canadians at heart". That would empty out the place fast. I'm confident, however, that by "Canadians", panhead means "panhead".
And Plaid Cymru has 3 MPs in at Westminster, Sinn Féin 5.
...and in Spain the Catalan nationalists have lots of seats and regularly participate in coalition governments at the national level. There are also Basque nationalists, Galician nationalists and Canary Island nationalists that all have MPs.
In Finland there is a Swedish peoples party that only represents the interests of the Swedish speaking minority. In Belgium there are parties in parliament that are only there to promote the autonomy of the Flemish or Walloon areas. This is all vefry routine.
And Balad and the United Arab List hold seven seats in Israel's 120-member Knesset.
Oh, hang on a second, the central elections committee has just banned both parties from running in the next election, on the grounds that they don't recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
So panhead is right after all - we have a model of democracy that we can follow here.
Not to mention Pat "Panhead" Martin, member for Winnipeg Centre, who introduced the following motion #219 in the House in September 2006:
That would eliminate not only the separatists, but also the socialists (who don't believe in monarchy). Only Stephen Harper and Pat Martin would remain. I'm fine with that. A Quiet Revolution.
Its considered a foregone conclusion that the Supeme Court in Israel will overturn the election committee ruling and that Balad and the United Arab List will be allowed to participate afterall - this ritual happens in almost every election - doesn't make it OK, but it will be overturned.
If I was a BQ MP, I wouldn't have a problem swearing an oath of loyalty to Canada. Oaths are just empty words anyways. They already have to swear allegiance to the Queen and they just do it. In any case, I would the attitude that as long as Quebec is part of Canada - I as a federal MP am loyal to Canada. The day Quebec becomes an independent country with no special to the rest of Canada - I will automatically cease to be an MP so my oath of loyalty to Canada will become moot.
Funny how no one seemed to mind when Harper was making backroom deals with the BQ and promising them everything but the kitchen sink - not to mention recognizing Quebec as a nation etc...
I agree completely. I find the label of 'separatist' so archaic and cartoonish so as to be almost laughable. Via skdadl @ pogge, here's what Duceppe said after he heard the latest economic measures:
If the rights of women and the rights of workers are 'separatist' values, show me where to sign up.
What are people's thoughts on this under-analysed current in the new coalition craze?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CPC play this to the francophobe population - which just happens to be one of their supporting social groups. But, then, who ever accused them of being open-minded progressives?
There is a real danger here. If the Quebec media seize on these anti-Quebec feelings, support for sovereignty could start to rise. And if the Liberals ever backed out of the coalition for fear of being tarred with association with the Bloc, we'd have Meech Lake all over again, when support for sovereignty soared to 60% after Meech was defeated -- and Bouchard left the Tories, founded the Bloc, and ended as prime minister of Quebec.
I don't think the problem with the Bloc is that they are separatist - it's that they are solely and entirely concerned with Quebec. They want what's best for Quebec; if that is what is best with ROC then that's fantastic, but if not, the interests of Quebec outweigh the interests of the ROC. While people say that other parties are regional (Libs - Toronto; Cons - West); the Bloc is the only party that actually has this as part of their platform. From their website:
Right now the issue of separation is not in Quebec's best interests, so it's taken a back seat. But it will be back at some point and in the meantime the Bloc continues to advocate for Quebec without regard for the rest of Canada. And I don't fault the Bloc for doing it. Its mandate is to defend Quebec's rights and interests etc.
Politicians pander to Quebec all the time. Harper (and Ignatieff) with his whole Quebec as a Nation thing; resolving the fiscal imbalance; huge equalization payments... People are worried that with the Bloc holding the balance of power over the coalition, more concessions will come at the expense of the other provinces. I don't think anyone is seriously concerned that a coalition is going to open the door to separation. The issue is how stable a coaltion is which is supported by a party that doesn't give a fig about 9 provinces and 3 territories.
sorry let me just add, that anything is better than a Harper government - even an unstable coalition of self-interested parties and conflicting priorities.
"I don't think the problem with the Bloc is that they are separatist - it's that they are solely and entirely concerned with Quebec. They want what's best for Quebec; if that is what is best with ROC then that's fantastic, but if not, the interests of Quebec outweigh the interests of the ROC. While people say that other parties are regional (Libs - Toronto; Cons - West); the Bloc is the only party that actually has this as part of their platform."
We have always had government that soley and entirely concerned with the interests of capital, yet this is not an issue. The Bloc is forthcoming about their agenda. This arguement is weak in light of the Con's support of oil extraction at the expense of the non-oil producing provinces.
"The CPC play this to the francophobe population - which just happens to be one of their supporting social groups. But, then, who ever accused them of being open-minded progressives?"
My point was that unlike the "NDP are socialists" line that is really just a fantasy of the CPC and their base, the anti-separatist narratives are non-partisan and come from the right and left.
Jesus Murphy! The Cons in Question Period today are raising the Separatist boogyman over and over. Harper has no shame. He has to go!
All Harper can offer in QP today is a challenge to Dion to take it to the people - ie, an election.
Says who?
The Bloc currently have 49 MPs in the House of Commons and like it or lump it have as much right as any group of MPs in the House to supply confidence and engage in bargaining over policy matters.
They are also a progressive party, and while they do not care about the affairs of British Columbians or Nova Scotians, they have been standing up for the interests of working class Canadians in their short 18 year life far more than the Liberals and Tories have done in their entire histories.
They have also already committed to supporting the coalition until June 2010 and were willing to support it until 2011 if the NDP and Liberals had conceded on some more Quebec-based issues.
It is very telling that a coalition involving a separatist party will likely better govern the whole country during the 40th parliament than Harper and his merry band of know-nothings.
Is the Bloc betraying its long-term goal?
Independantists believe there are two countries in Canada, Quebec and the ROC. The ROC elected a Conservative government which would have been in the majority without the Bloc votes. It would govern the way many English Canadians want, cutting some culture funding, toughening laws. Without the Bloc the Libs and NDP couldn't form a government. Does the Bloc want to show that federalism works ?
Funny thing in all of this nonsense by the CPC against the Bloc and PQ, is that it is really going to shoot them in the foot regarding their chances of keeping the seats they have in PQ, and indeed getting more, and thus their thoughts of a majority are going to slip further away.
They can't get more seats in AB and SK. Well maybe 2 if Duncan and Goodale go, but that is it. People in BC that I know, are not afraid of the Bloc, nor any notion of "separatists". In fact, lots of people I know would vote Duceppe in heartbeat if the Bloc was a national party and feel more comfortable that the coalition has the Bloc as part of it.
Face it, if Canada is doing bad, so will Quebec. Thus it becomes a priority of Duceppe's to insure Canada does well.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Gee maybe just maybe the three parties are actually thinking that this is a REAL economic crisis that happens hopefully only once in a lifetime and therefore time to but aside many differences to work on the economic problem. Whether you think Quebec would be better off inside of Canada or separate it does not change the fact that action needs to be taken now or workers and their families all across Canada will potentially suffer drastic consequences. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ A Sight to See: Harpo Hoisted on His Own Petard
"Thus it becomes a priority of Duceppe's to insure Canada does well." Exactly the feeling expressed by almost all French-speaking Quebeckers on open-line radio programs... except for the Harper 'bots - mouthing packaged lines from http://mycampaign.ca - who try to present themselves as ultra-sovereignists denouncing "Traitor" Duceppe.
More fun than a barrel of monkeys.
Harper was caught lying in Question Period today - TWICE! First, he said yesterday the Coalition leaders did not have a Canadian flag behind them when they signed - bullshit - there were TWO Canadian flags behind them!
Second, Harper said he would never sign a document like the one signed yesterday - bullshit - he signed almost the same letter not long ago with Layton and Duceppe in an attempt to take power away from Paul Martin.
Harper is losing it.
Face it, if Canada is doing bad, so will Quebec. Thus it becomes a priority of Duceppe's to insure Canada does well.
I completely agree. And I think for the first couple of months everything will go fine.
My concern is that, while everyone agrees that something needs to be done about our (global) financial crisis, not everyone agrees on what should be done. Couple this with the fact that I have very little faith in any politician to put partisan politics aside and focus on what's good for the country instead of what's good for his party (yes, his).
People are already upset that the NDP has agreed on the corporate tax issue. Each party is going to have to make concessions at some point which will further alienate many in each party's base (except of course, the Conservatives who will come out of this stronger than ever since they won't be responsible for anything that the coalition does. When the economy goes further south, the cons will be able to say "see, you should have stuck with us").
Harper was caught lying in Question Period today - TWICE! First, he said yesterday the Coalition leaders did not have a Canadian flag behind them when they signed - bullshit - there were TWO Canadian flags behind them!
Second, Harper said he would never sign a document like the one signed yesterday - bullshit - he signed almost the same letter not long ago with Layton and Duceppe in an attempt to take power away from Paul Martin.
Harper is losing it.
Also the leaders are saying that in French he said that the Bloc is selling out its seperatist agenda to join Canada but in English they are saying that they are selling out the Canadians for a seperatist agenda?
So is the Agenda to keep Canada together ( as stated in French ) or to tear it apart ( as stated in English ) according to the Conservatives?
I have actually worked with Bloc members on some agriculture issues. I found them quite serious about their committment as MPs to act in the best interests of citizens. True their main focus is Quebec, but does anyone really think that the Conservative MP from Ashwhipe-Nosehonk in Alberta thinks about the best interests of the people of my riding in Ontario very much, or a single riding in Quebec. I highly doubt it.
I find this whole line about 'seperatists' highly anti-democratic- as they were duly elected by Canadian citizens and extremely self-serving since we all know Harper remained in power in year one of his government through support of the Bloc.
"Harper was caught lying in Question Period today - TWICE! First, he said yesterday the Coalition leaders did not have a Canadian flag behind them when they signed - bullshit - there were TWO Canadian flags behind them!
Second, Harper said he would never sign a document like the one signed yesterday - bullshit - he signed almost the same letter not long ago with Layton and Duceppe in an attempt to take power away from Paul Martin."
Were the Op Parties able to point out these lies? Will the media actually report on them?
Harper "said yesterday the Coalition leaders did not have a Canadian flag behind them when they signed - bullshit - there were TWO Canadian flags behind them!"
But were they wearing Canadan flag boxer shorts?
Anglos aren't scared...We have alll seen duceppe in debates etc. and I even heard many people thru the years saying they would vote for him if he wasn't a Quebec only party.
What we have going on here is fear mongoring and what harper does best...divide and conquering. He is trying to polarize Canadians and especially the west against Quebec and using the coalition to do it. He is petrified and scared stiff and will resort to any measure to save his ass. Canada pfft not even on the radar for these rats backed into a corner.
He is preparing for an election with his media and supporters just in case the governor general calls one. In either case I think he is history, because as we all know if a government doesn't have Quebec support they don't go anywhre. Remember the only reason he is a prime minister is he comvinced the bloc and the NDP to go onside against Martin and defeat the Libs. What a hypocrite and the west sucked it up.
He enjoyed lib abstaining for a PROlonged time as we all know and is only in power because the Libs allowed it.
Now he is toast because after all the bad things he has been saying there is no way he will ever get a Quebec vote and just maybe Canadians will now see that the greatest threat to unity was and is the conservative, but don't count on the neocon media to point it out. They will probably encourage it. Encite riots and be responsible for all kinds of hateful rotten incidents.
What the coalition has to do if there is an election call is point this out to the new fear consumed Canadian the brainwashed simplton conservatives and there partisan media outlets created and get those people who didn't vote ...to vote.
By the time harper is done the ndp will be called socialists, commies etc....the bloc seperatists..the liberals ______ fill in the blank. Going after the lowest human denominator by name calling is the conservative way. So just maybe someone has to come out with one for the conservatives. We all know they attract every racist ,bigot and sexist...I like the phrase "neocon scum".
If dummy con(servative)uck doesn't like being called a socialist or commie or seperatist how bout neocon scum...I'm sure they woul like that. Don't worry francophone Canada it's not all anglo Canada that believes that lying bag of shit called the conservative party of Canada.
By that notion, Dion is if anything far more ingenuous. The Liberals ran ads before warning that Harper would work with the Bloc. Dion's academic work on Quebec, and intellectual argument behind his opposition to the fiscal disequlibrium arguments is that by granting more powers to separatist governments, you increase the sense among the secessionist minority that they have the ability to run governments. Dion also argued in the campaign that he would not form a coalition with the NDP.
Jack Layton has acted honourably, if, I think unwisely in all this. Dion is a powerhungry cad whose reputation for honesty is more a function of his utter incompetence.
Were the Op Parties able to point out these lies? Will the media actually report on them?
Media already is - I was told CBC is reporting it.