What ever happened to plans for a provincial NDP in Quebec?

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
Orangutan
What ever happened to plans for a provincial NDP in Quebec?

What ever happened to plans for a provincial NDP in Quebec?  As I recall some former MLA wanted to created a provincial NDP party in Quebec.

I think the timing is critical to get this off the ground and soon, especially since the creation of the new right-wing party today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_for_the_Future_of_Quebec

In the Saskatchewan form, someone pointed out that the right often forms new political parties, switches allegiances to another party, or rename/rebrand the existing party - whenever the existing conservative party plunges in the polls.

Examples:

BC Social Credit > (switched allegiances) > BC Liberals

Saskatchewan Progressive Conservatives > (formed new party) > Saskatchewan Party

Yukon Progressive Conservatives > (renamed) > Yukon Party

Union Nationale > Quebec Liberals > Action Democratique > Coalition for the Future of Quebec 

Progressive Conservatives > (formed new party/some switched allegiances) > Reform Party > (rebranded) > Canadian Alliance > (formed new party) > Conservative Party of Canada

The NDP has only ever undergone one major name change (two if you could the brief time we were referred to as the New Party). 

 

I fear Quebecers will be fooled by this new conservative party because it is new and they distain the existing provincial parties.  Liberals are seen as corrupt.  PQ as incompetent.  ADQ as irrelevant.  Quebec Solidaire as too extreme and sovereigntist.  

Polls done have shown that a Quebec NDP would win the next provincial election (though other polls ahve also shown the CFQ or a Duceppe led PQ could also win)

 

Does anyone know what the status of this is?  My French isn't too good, but I would be willing to go to Quebec and help out if necessary.  

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
theleftyinvestor

Remember that the last Quebec NDP was cut loose and it merged into a succession of parties, which is now represented by Québec Solidaire (which has an orange colour scheme).

Mulcair put it very plainly at his Vancouver event. The Quebec political landscape is a mess of upstart parties, and the federal NDP there has plenty of trees but few roots. The organizational resources required just to sustain the victory there and build up constituency associations make it unlikely that a provincial party could be started up when the federal party is still solidifying. Certainly this is not a feat that could be accomplished in time for 2012. 

But beyond that election it does make space for a conversation to take place. Especially if we see an outcome as wacky as a 29-33% majority government under Legault. His whole idea is to unite the right independently of the national question. If this means the PLQ and the PQ are decimated, it sets a tone for a realignment by which the same unifying force could potentially be found on the left. At present there is nobody standing up for a "federalist left" or even a "neutral-on-sovereignty left". The PLQ has essentially existed a "big federalist tent", and many Quebecois that I met at the federal convention in Vancouver had also worked with either the PQ or PLQ depending on who spoke to them on the policy front. The PQ has at times leaned left, and QS is a more radical movement on the left, but both are explicitly separatist. 

So I don't think it's totally out of the question to reboot a provincial NDP, but I couldn't see it happening until the federal party has solidified their gains there and has plenty of resources to spare.

KenS

The federal party is not going to have any resources to spare before 2015.

What might be possible, is that if there is that fundamental shift of the political lanscape after the Quebec election, by around 2013 there could be some mutually reinforcing deveopment of the federal party and a new provincial party.... and therefore not a diluting of resources. But that smooth concert is much easier said than done.

Orangutan

I don't buy this resource arguement.  A vegan friend of mine was part of a group that started a political party (Vegan Environmental Party) about ten weeks before the Ontario provincial election.  The Green Party (before the last two federal elections) did remarkable things with very little resources.

 

I am not sure what the laws or requirements are to register a party in Quebec - but it should not be that hard.  It usually involves creating a constiution/by-laws for the party and getting a certain number of signatures.  Just get the basic done (ie having it registered) and the rest will likely follow.  

 

KenS

You can create any dinky party you want. You are right, that is easy.

But there are very few interested in a Quebec NDP just being another place on the ballot.

It is not going to happen until it can be a full effort. One consderation in that being that none of our allies will even consider joining in until that is a minimum. Otherewise, we are just a competitor to them, and they will stay where they are.

theleftyinvestor

Moreover, if the creation of an official provincial party leads to Quebec federal members being unable to join any other provincial party... It could be off-putting.

But perhaps a political movement could emerge that is roughly aligned with the NDP without a formal affiliation.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

The NDP should put its resources into fully supporting the only grasroots leftist party in Quebec, Québec Solidaire. Anything else would be cynical and against the interests of progressive politics in Quebec and across the country.

And I would also suggest that unless the NDP comes to terms with Quebec's right to self-determination, their federal success will be short lived.

Unionist

Fascinating conversation by non-Quebeckers trying to figure out "what Québec wants or needs" (or - perhaps - how Québec can serve some political interests elsewhere).

If you care about the NDP, work hard to ensure that the federal NDP maintains its strength in Québec and grows outside, or the NDP will return to the wilderness.

 

Stockholm

Catchfire wrote:

The NDP should put its resources into fully supporting the only grasroots leftist party in Quebec, Québec Solidaire. Anything else would be cynical and against the interests of progressive politics in Quebec and across the country.

And I would also suggest that unless the NDP comes to terms with Quebec's right to self-determination, their federal success will be short lived.

The NDP will NEVER formally support a party that explicitly wants Quebec to separate from Canada. Period. End of story. If QS were smart they would make themselves into a leftwing version of the new Legault party and declare that sovereignty is a dormant cause that is a low priority and pledge to put it on the back burner for the foreseeable future - then they could be a rallying place for federal and sovereignist progressives in Quebec. The way things are now - its impossible to support them unless you express belief in Quebec independence. So we're back to square one - if you are a Quebecer who is leftwing and who does not support sovereignty - there is NO ONE to vote for - NO ONE!

I agree that now is not the time for a provincial NDP to be created. I'm just lamenting the total lack of options in Quebec provincial politics for people who are progressive federalists.

Bärlüer

Stockholm wrote:

The way things are now - its impossible to support them unless you express belief in Quebec independence.

And yet... it is not. I can guarantee you that plenty of federalists have voted for QS. Just like plenty of sovereignists (such as myself) have voted for the NDP.

No reports of self-combustion as of yet.

It's not a coincidence that QS (genuinely left) and the PQ (once upon a time left of center) are parties that embrace sovereignty. And that the right-wing parties are federalist. (Significantly) More often than not, progressives in Quebec tend to be sovereignists (to variable degrees).

lagatta

Funny, I know a LOT of Québec solidaire members who have worked for NDP candidates and vice-versa. I also know a progressive federalist who has stood for MNA for QS. This is only unthinkable for people outside Québec.

By the way, progressive federalists could support the Greens, and QS proposed an electoral pact with the Greens not to stand for election in the riding of their leader if the Greens did the same.

Bärlüer, there are progressive federalists here; probably most, but not all, are anglophones. But support for national self-determination (which does not mean one prefers Québec independence) is essential for anyone to be seen as progressive, and I don't just mean Québec self-determination but that of Indigenous nations (obviously modalities for all such things need to be worked out).

Stockholm, for the reasons you say (electoral poison among Canada-chauvinist voters outside Qc) the NDP has never formally supported QS, and QS have never formally supported the NDP. But it is clear who attends each other's election parties.

Stockholm

Obviously there are individual voters who vote for both the NDP and QS - but you will still never see a federalist party like the NDP formally support a sovereignist party like QS...and btw: this idea that progressives in Quebec are all sovereignists and that small "c" conservatives are all federalist "fuddy-duddys" is less and less true. Look at all the rightwing sovereignist types that have infiltrated the ADQ (including some ex-BQ MPs) as well as people in Legault's entourage. Let's not forget that Lucien Bouchard was a CONSERVATIVE before he created the BQ, was a rightwing premier and now sponsors rightwing movements like "les lucides"

Aristotleded24

theleftyinvestor wrote:
Moreover, if the creation of an official provincial party leads to Quebec federal members being unable to join any other provincial party.

More specifically, NDP members are forbidden from belonging to other parties. Since there is no provincial NPD section in Quebec, members of the NPD are free to belong to other provincial parties, and many people involved in the federal NPD belong to Quebec Solidaire provincially. If a Quebec section is created, then the prohibition from belonging to other parties kicks in, members will have to choose, and most will choose Quebec Solidaire.

Besides, we don't need parties with labels that are exactly the same in Quebec as they are in the rest of Canada. For instance, do you think the federal Conservatives had issues dealing with the ADQ?

Unionist

lagatta wrote:

Funny, I know a LOT of Québec solidaire members who have worked for NDP candidates and vice-versa. I also know a progressive federalist who has stood for MNA for QS. This is only unthinkable for people outside Québec.

Thanks for the voice of reason, lagatta. I've found it hard to comment calmly in this thread. I happen to think that an independent Québec is generally undesirable and unnecessary, yet I voted BQ from 1993 to 2007, I vote QS provincially, and before that I voted PQ or not at all. Maybe we should open a thread where Quebecers comment on the need for a Saskatchewan solidaire party. The comments might be as useful as some of those here.

But behind some of the posts (especially those of Stockholm) is the amusing notion that whether one is left, right, communist or fascist, the most determining factor is whether one wants to save the federation at all cost - everything else is secondary. That's the most glaring inability to understand what Québec is about, and it informs much of this discussion among NDPers elsewhere.

 

Lefauve

Unionist wrote:

Fascinating conversation by non-Quebeckers trying to figure out "what Québec wants or needs" (or - perhaps - how Québec can serve some political interests elsewhere).

If you care about the NDP, work hard to ensure that the federal NDP maintains its strength in Québec and grows outside, or the NDP will return to the wilderness.

 

Me, i'm not suprise at all, of  the idea that every thing that quebec do or don't do must be absolutly for the good of the confederation, I wonder when they will understand that a state (or a province) got no friend, only interrest.

 

Personnally i never ear about pei sc or nb doing something or to be expected of doing something for the good of the confederation neither from Ontario. It is one of many reason i'm for sovereignty.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I don't doubt that are NDP members in Quebec that strongly support Quebec self-determination. Why wouldn't they?

Lefauve

Boom Boom wrote:

I don't doubt that are NDP members in Quebec that strongly support Quebec self-determination. Why wouldn't they?

 

I don't speak of the npd in partiliar, it just a general mentality that i observe, people alway expect other to throw away there interest in flavor of there own.  Just like the american expect pakistan to think of american interest first. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Those who advocate a Quebec NDP would also be advocating an all out federal NDP attack on QS.  Since such an attack could only have negative effects on the federal NDP's chances in Quebec(creating horrible bad feelings and driving almost all current QS activists back into alignment with the Bloc, therefore giving the Bloc a chance for a comeback it otherwise wouldn't have at all), why would anyone think this was a good thing?

Isn't growing the left in Quebec, at the National Assembly level, really the only thing the federal NDP should want at this point?  Nothing that hurts QS could help the federal Dippers in QC.

The crucial difference on sovereignty between QS and the PQ is this...the PQ is about sovereignty to the exclusion of almost anything else-other than sovereignty, as it's post-Levesque policy direction has shown, the PQ has no core values at all.  QS has sovereignty as part of its ultimate objectives, but it is far more concerned about social justice, workers' rights, a sustainable environment and opposition to all forms of bigotry. 

Therefore, there's no real reason for anyone to say that, if they otherwise would back QS, they can't just because of the sovereignty thing.  That ONE issue is not worth destroying the only left force that exists on what we'd call anywhere else the "provincial" level and making the left or center-left start all over again.  All fighting against QS, which is what a provincial NDP would be based on in Quebec, could achieve would be destroying the progressive sector of Quebec politics.  Is it worth that over ONE issue?

What matters is building a just world...not the constitutional structure of any given nation.

Stockholm

These days the vast majority of Quebecers think it is in their interest to remain part of Canada. What does that tell you?

I have yet to meet ANYONE in the NDP - or in any party for that matter - who doesn't support self-determination for Quebec and for any other province. If a majority of Quebecers vote to secede from Canada and become and independent country - no one will stand in their way. Democracy rules!

I have noticed that the people who go on and on about "self-determination" never seem to accept that self-determination can also mean Quebec wanting to remain in Canada.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Fine, whatever.

The point is this, though;

What is good about QS(it's left agenda)is far more important than what a few people here have a problem with(its stand on sovereignty).

It could never be worth the time of anyone who supports the NDP to try to form a party to run against QS in National Assembly elections.  All that could ever achieve would be to permanently drive all francophones in Quebec away from the NDP(leaving it, as it was in the Tommy Douglas/David Lewis era, a party that only anglos ever voted for in Quebec and only a tiny number of anglos at that)and force Quebec politics to the right.

Why would anyone think that this was acceptable?

Yet that is what the person who started this thread wants-he wants one part of the left to fight another part of the left in Quebec, even though left-against-left campaigning is always futile and self-defeating.

Those who put "federalism" first in Quebec and use that as a case for organizing a Quebec NDP to stand against QS at the National Assembly level are simply not interested in building a left in Quebec OR in Canada-because they are putting a trivial detail above the project of building a radical alternative to the status quo.

It's ok to argue that there are things that should matter more than the sovereignty issue...which, on balance, is actually a position that QS takes for all practical...but to use that issue as a case for proscribing QS is to give aid and comfort to the corporate Right.  There simply can't be a left case for opposing QS.

KenS

Its not that black and white.

The supporter base of the QS is composed both of people who would be willing to be part of a Quebec NDP, and others who would not want anything t do with it for either/or sovereignist/left reasons and would see it only as a competitor.

Nobody owns the left. Realistically, there is only room for one party with a chance of electing members. And they would not in practice fight each other.

Unionist

Please do not debate with Stockholm about Québec. He covers his lack of knowledge with enthusiasm. It can easily be mistaken for provocation.

Please note that these lectures about establishing a provincial NDP come from those who are incapable of convincing their neighbours to elect a significant number of NDPers - after generations of trying. We just put Jack on TV, and people rise to the occasion - people who don't give a fiddler's fart for the federation, but who care about their families and their future.

The more I hear ignorant comments about Québec from abroad, the less reluctant I am to set up some immigration and customs controls.

Stockholm

I keep saying that I support Quebec (and all other provinces) right to self-determination. I'm not sure why you can't take "yes" for an answer.

I am not in favour of a provincial NDP in Quebec at this time...maybe in the future - who knows. I'm also not telling people to reject QS. In fact if I lived in Quebec i might very well vote for the them. I'm simply saying that for a variety of obvious reasons - the federal NDP as an institution should never and will never formally endorse a provincial party that wants Quebec to separate. Individual people can do as they please - but a federalist federal party formally endorsing a separatist provincial party might just as well douse itself in kerosene and immolate itself.

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
Isn't growing the left in Quebec, at the National Assembly level, really the only thing the federal NDP should want at this point?  Nothing that hurts QS could help the federal Dippers in QC.

The crucial difference on sovereignty between QS and the PQ is this...the PQ is about sovereignty to the exclusion of almost anything else-other than sovereignty, as it's post-Levesque policy direction has shown, the PQ has no core values at all.  QS has sovereignty as part of its ultimate objectives, but it is far more concerned about social justice, workers' rights, a sustainable environment and opposition to all forms of bigotry.

Therefore, there's no real reason for anyone to say that, if they otherwise would back QS, they can't just because of the sovereignty thing.  That ONE issue is not worth destroying the only left force that exists on what we'd call anywhere else the "provincial" level and making the left or center-left start all over again.  All fighting against QS, which is what a provincial NDP would be based on in Quebec, could achieve would be destroying the progressive sector of Quebec politics.  Is it worth that over ONE issue?

Certainly people need to learn more about QS and be a bit more flexible. But I would also argue that QS itself has some responsibility for communicating its message in such a way that doesn't alienate federalist voters, and emphasises the common issues that people face. That's why Dr. Khadir is popular right now, because he has been tirelessly hammering away at the corruption issue in the province.

Another important reason for QS to be able to strike this balance is because as a left force, QS will naturally try to reach out to immigrant voters. Immigrants tend to lean more towards the federalist end of the spectrum, so this will be a challenge for QS.

Is QS up to this challenge? Time will tell.

Lefauve

I think ndp make it position clear on quebec right of self determination. But what i like to point out  it  quebec is oftenly point out as hero or foe but rarely something more neutral. The C-10 Law is a good example. 

 

But for the right of self determination que question is not the classic pro or again self determination, it more a how much. 

Ex is the npd will let quebec take control of the criminal code in his territory in order to let quebec have a more rehabilitation oriented.

Orangutan

KenS wrote:

But there are very few interested in a Quebec NDP just being another place on the ballot.

 

Isn't that how we got elected in Quebec back in May?

We had very few resources on the grounds.  Most ridings did not even have riding associations.  We were basically a name on a ballot.  

Tell the folks at NDP-HQ to stop overthinking this.  If we wait until we have enough resources, we may either be waiting forever or it may be too late.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Why are you pushing for something that can only help the Right?

People who vote NDP federally should vote QS in National Assembly elections.  The NDP wouldn't have anything to offer that could possibly be worth putting it in competition with QS and thereby giving aid and comfort to the Quebec corporate elite.

It's not worth making that big a deal over the sovereignty vs. federalism thing, dude.  Federalism in Quebec, for those who put it first, will always basically be a right-wing cause.

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
Why are you pushing for something that can only help the Right?

People who vote NDP federally should vote QS in National Assembly elections.  The NDP wouldn't have anything to offer that could possibly be worth putting it in competition with QS and thereby giving aid and comfort to the Quebec corporate elite.

It's not worth making that big a deal over the sovereignty vs. federalism thing, dude.  Federalism in Quebec, for those who put it first, will always basically be a right-wing cause.

Ken, it sounds like you aren't paying attention to what is being written. Somebody asked why there is no Quebec section for the NPD, and that question was answered. Nobody has advocated going down that road. Even Stockholm, probably the most strident anti-sovereigntist poster on babble, has advocated that creating a Quebec section of the NPD isn't a wise use of resources, and that he would be open to voting QS if he lived in Quebec.

Here's something QS needs to contend with. Even though guys like Legault, Dumont, and Charest are quite right-wing, every time there is a hint of soveriegnty issues coming to the public fore, their popularity goes up. Charest especially has gotten away with so many things because he won't call another referendum. If the public appetite for sovereignty was even a fraction of what so many on the left claim to be, the PQ would be leading in the polls. What does the fact that the PQ is in trouble tell you?

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:
If the public appetite for sovereignty was even a fraction of what so many on the left claim to be, the PQ would be leading in the polls.

Sorry A24, you are displaying startling assumptions about "many on the left", about where the "public" is in Québec, and much else. And you must think QS spends its time running around advocating for independence. And you seem to think the PQ's problems are related to its staunch insistence on sovereignty now. Why don't you step back and listen to what Quebecers are saying, and leave the hypothesizing to Stockholm. He's got squatter's rights anyway.

 

lil.Tommy

Here's a change in direction... for those who know QS or PQ politics well, would the QS ever re-invent itself into the NPDQuebec? i know they are a formation of various forces anyway; and have had agreements with the greens (all mentioned above) But Quebec is now in a post-May political situation where the right is coalessing around a new party. 

Could it: 1) benefit the QS to run as the NPDQ? They will now also have the benefit of being in a leaders debate come the next election which if i were QS i'd put Francoise David in to give her more exposure (ie help her get elected). 2) would the greens now be interested in the previously attempted merger?

which if this happened would that not possibly attract people like Scoot MacKay PQ MNA who used to lead the Greens, or others... like Henri-francois Gautrin? MNA who used to be avtive in the NDP. Would the party even want them (Gautrin's been Liberal for so long and i think that might leave a bad taste for many)

trying to change up the discussion here... note, i'd vote QS if i lived in Quebec on the provincial and NDP federal.

The PQ is weak on the left right now, and the next election is a year or two away. As NDPers we better get our act together and figure out where we want to help direct our resources... some who live and die for polls are saying QS could win up to 6 seats. At this time i am agreeing with "now is not the time for a NPDQ" unless the QS does whats mentioned above :) . We should be focusing our resources on electing the most likely progressive forces in Quebec and at this time thats QS.

KenS

Elements of the QS would no doubt be an early part of it, if and when a Quebec NDP is put to wing.

But re-branding the QS would require virtual unaminity in both organizations that this would be a good idea. And that ust will not happen in either.

Unionist

lil.Tommy wrote:

Here's a change in direction... for those who know QS or PQ politics well, would the QS ever re-invent itself into the NPDQuebec?

No.

Quote:
i know they are a formation of various forces anyway; and have had agreements with the greens (all mentioned above)

What agreement with the Greens?

Quote:
But Quebec is now in a post-May political situation where the right is coalessing around a new party.

No it isn't. In fact, the right has produced an additional party. How that rolls out in the months and years to come is anyone's guess. Right now, I count four (4) parties of the right.

Quote:
Could it: 1) benefit the QS to run as the NPDQ? They will now also have the benefit of being in a leaders debate come the next election which if i were QS i'd put Francoise David in to give her more exposure (ie help her get elected). 2) would the greens now be interested in the previously attempted merger?

What are you talking about? What attempted merger?

Quote:
trying to change up the discussion here... note, i'd vote QS if i lived in Quebec on the provincial and NDP federal.

You know something about Quebecers? Since the Quiet Revolution, they don't vote for a particular party any more, whether federally or provincially.

Quote:
We should be focusing our resources on electing the most likely progressive forces in Quebec and at this time thats QS.

What would a provincial NDP have to offer, even if you had the resources (which seems to be one of the huge criteria in this thread... among non-Quebecers who appear not to have noticed that the NDP won more seats here than they've ever won in the rest of Canada put together, with zero "resources"!)?

Would it look like this: 1. We believe in a united Canada! 2. We will give you good government like Gary Doer or Lorne Calvert or Darrell Dexter or Bob Rae or...

Non, merci.

lil.Tommy

- I ask since QS was created by UFP and OC... so i don't think its out of the question, even if its unlikely.

- Ok, read above... the Greens and QS agreed not to run in each others leaders ridings. Previous to that the Greens and UFP tried not to run against each other at all.
- Your right CAQ is a new party, infact there are 6 parties in the NA... I was referring to the situation happeneing with the ADQ, half their members are "independents" now and i have heard that two of them are looking at CAQ.
- I didn't think i was being that unclear... post-may, being the QS could benefit from being associated with the NDP who swept the province in May, could they not try and ride that wave some? I might be off about the merger... but when QS was forming, did they not extend a hand to the greens to join?
- I said "If i lived in Quebec" please read what i wrote... And i do know a few things about Quebecers; i have Anglo family in Montreal... they vote Liberal, always, everywhere (I wouldn't but they seem to, i wont generalize like you have about the entire province)... but Quebec since the 80's has been voting en masse for one party, PC, then Liberals, then BQ now the NDP.
- In May, we all know it was a perfect storm... so to keep these gains which you seem to be taking for granted you need to build up resources... for me that means Constituency associations, a base of volunteers, connections to labour and community groups, memberships! (glad to hear we are over 5000 members too!). Having 59 MPs is wonderful but they are busy with Parliament and their duties. Resources are those who work the ground during elections (i've personally been a decicated door-knocker/phone canvasser), keep the offices/websites running and active... see what i'm getting at. Being Linked to a bigger family (the Federal and all other provincial wings) can only benefit any NPDQ. I have friends who travel the country working on provincial campaigns, quebec can't benefit from that pool of talented campaigners and organizers. Not saying they need to but who shuns helps when they can get it?

Unionist

lil.Tommy wrote:

- Ok, read above... the Greens and QS agreed not to run in each others leaders ridings.

Where to start with this???

1. The QS does not have "leaders". They have two spokespersons - Amir Khadir and Françoise David.

2. In the last two elections (one general, one byelection) where Scott McKay (Green leader) ran, there were QS candidates running in the same riding.

3. In the last two elections (general elections of 2007 and 2008) where Amir Khadir ran, there were Green candidates running in the same riding.

4. In the last two elections (general elections of 2007 and 2008) where Françoise David ran, there were Green candidates running in the same riding.

So, to be very clear: What are you talking about???

Quote:
Previous to that the Greens and UFP tried not to run against each other at all.

That's not quite right. There was no agreement of any kind. The Greens said they would "try" not to run against the UFP (it has always been an unfathomable mystery to me how you would go about trying not to nominate a candidate and organize a campaign, but maybe that's just me). Anyway, they didn't always try hard enough. For example, in Gouin (Françoise David's riding), there were both Green and UFP candidates in the 2003 general election and the 2004 byelection. They might have tried again, but the UFP only existed for 4 years or so...

Quote:
Your right CAQ is a new party, infact there are 6 parties in the NA... I was referring to the situation happeneing with the ADQ, half their members are "independents" now and i have heard that two of them are looking at CAQ.

So coalescence of the right is two people? Ok.

Quote:
I didn't think i was being that unclear... post-may, being the QS could benefit from being associated with the NDP who swept the province in May, could they not try and ride that wave some?

How's that? Photos of Jack Layton? Change their program? Re-name themselves "NDP"? Some people in this thread seem to think that Quebecers voted NDP because they have suddenly decided to support federalism. Unless you struggle to understand what is going on in Québec, using phony brand names is not going to fool anyone. Not for very long, anyway.

Quote:
I might be off about the merger... but when QS was forming, did they not extend a hand to the greens to join?

I think they'd like the PQ to join too! What's the point here? Shouldn't we base our conversation on actual facts, on real information?

Quote:
In May, we all know it was a perfect storm... so to keep these gains which you seem to be taking for granted

Taking for granted? Read my post. I said the best thing NDPers can do right now is to consolidate these gains and try to elect a few people outside Québec. It is entirely possible that NDP standing in 2015 (or whenever) will return from 59 back to 1, or less. There is no unbreakable bond between Québec voters and the NDP. Easy come, easy go.

 

 

lil.Tommy

- I stand corrected, as an outsider i was trying to understand the scene in quebec, somehow this seems to offend you? i did not mean for that. My understanding of QS has come from trying to dig up research online, i do see now that it was an "arrangement that will try but reserve the right to do what they heck they want". I was already aware that  QS used spokepeople but my ontarian vernacular is just so used to saying leader... Wiki was my resource for that arragement comment, i know not a great source but it what i had at the time.

- Well the ADQ only had 7 seats, and only have 4 now... two jumping to CAQ, which some polls have as doing quite well when included looks to be a coalesense, a small one but its not the right direction where the ADQ is concerned.

- I think thats part of the point of this thread, is to understand the situation in Quebec, is there room/need for a NPDQ. Quebec from outside, looks to be a personalist scene, so yes QS could run with Amir and Francoise plastered all over the place, seems to work. QS policies aren't that far off from the NDP's with some exceptions... this is why i brought them up and others have as well.

- Facts? it was a question, i did not know if this was the case or not.

- Federally i think thats what the party is doing... we especially need to do that in the west. But all of us here i am sure would love to see a progressive party win in quebec, with no other provincial election coming yup for the next year resources are going to be in the leadership/membership area. I think no one wants to lose those 59 MPS and quebec looks to be the where you would have to work hardest so building up there is important. There are benefits (and downsides) to being linked to a larger family.

Oh that brings me to another question... are municipal parties linked as well? like how COPE in vancouver is generally linked (i think unofficially) to the NDP? so in MTL would ProjectMontreal in some way work with/link to QS or even the NDP?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
Why are you pushing for something that can only help the Right?

People who vote NDP federally should vote QS in National Assembly elections.  The NDP wouldn't have anything to offer that could possibly be worth putting it in competition with QS and thereby giving aid and comfort to the Quebec corporate elite.

It's not worth making that big a deal over the sovereignty vs. federalism thing, dude.  Federalism in Quebec, for those who put it first, will always basically be a right-wing cause.

Ken, it sounds like you aren't paying attention to what is being written. Somebody asked why there is no Quebec section for the NPD, and that question was answered. Nobody has advocated going down that road.

The OP and post #25 were, to my reading, advocating the creation of such a party, and advocating it for the explicit purpose of trying to wipe out QS.  Those were the posts I was responding to there.

dacckon dacckon's picture

I am a Quebecker and I would like to see a provincial NDP again that doesn't get taken over by radicals. And I dispute an argument above that federalism is a right wing cause. What rubbish is that argument based on? Are these arguments of fear being constructed by those who feel threatened that their vanguard is in danger? Most likely. But don't you worry, Duceppe will take care of that issue without any need for the NPD anyways. It should be quite amusing.

 

Now then, back to the subject at hand. The conditions needed for a Quebec NDP are simple. A form of proportional representation(which this province would accept more than others), which would allow the federalist left to vote in comfort.  With that being created, there should be a diverse range of parties upon which the NDP would form a coalition with. Perhaps one like Mitterrand did in France with great results in the end for his party, oh what the heck I'm just having too much fun writing this post arn't I?

The other method would be for a provincial liberal or someone else to jump out and declare themselves a new democrat. This would give us legitmacy instantly and we would have a voice to build on.

The more painful method is to start from scratch. Nothing to fear, It can be done. Don't let them tell you it can't be done! Cool There has been growth in NDP membership in Quebec and I dare say there are people like Pierre D. who didn't run for us federally this time who could easily run provincially. This is something that can be done for the next election, but it would take alot of effort and time. We could get a full slate I believe, looking at the strength of some of our rural QC mps and our urbanites.

dacckon dacckon's picture

I don't hate radicals. NDP-like parties work with marxist parties in Europe all the time.I can point to tons of coalition governments. I just usually attack those who attack my beliefs since its fair game. Infact, I prefer that the left works in consensus all the time. I think that the best way of a common left agenda is to have coalitions with those that are progressive. It makes sense in Quebec, to have parties with similar principles work together. The problem I do have with certain types of radicals, is entryism. I should have been more clear to what I was refering to, since the term radical itself means nothing. Tony Blair once called himself a radical, but was in reality was just a dogmatic fool.

As for corporate anglo types, that has diminished. The West Island is very biligual now, and buisnesses that could not get over the issue of French have moved elsewhere.

Moderation is good for winning elections, but goes to waste if the next governments won do nothing but stay moderate. With that I agree with, and agree that the things like the Manitoba NDP get a kick in the arse and wake up.

But with issues like Greece, let me tell you as a Greek what happened. A large chunk of people in Greece did not pay taxes, ever. If you were to walk into a doctors office, he would not accept credit cards. Why cash? So he could evade taxes. My grandmother, and many people in Greek villages did not ever pay taxes. My father never remembers his family paying taxes in Greece. New Democracy, a conservative party, came into power and spent like crazy on things like the Olympics. But in order to get into the Euro, ND lied to europe about its debt levels. When PASOK came into power, they revealed the debt levels and tried to deal with them. What other choice is there? The Greek people want to stay in the EU, Greece also does not control its currency. The germans will not allow inflation because they are scared of inflation due to a lesson in history. The easiest way to do this is have the crisis resolved is to have Northern Europe leave the Euro, and form their own currency. Would probably be a popular idea amongst Scandinavian countries and a smart idea. Now that being said, I would reject PASOK because of its recent disgusting coalition with the bastards who caused the crisis in the first place and other issues. Anyways, this issue is complicated and it belongs in another thread.

And I was merely pointing out Mitterrand because of his coalition with the french communist party at the time. Which turned out to be a smart move. As the French Socialist Party began conquering the turf of the communist party. I don't think that "moderate progressives" are all like vancouver's mayor as well.

 

Back on the topic, a Quebec NDP would be very diverse provincial wing. It would attract a majority of Quebeckers in time.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I appreciate the clarification.

Sorry if I ranted a bit...Mitterrand is still a very sore point with me...he crushed the dreams of generation of French leftists and of others who saw the miraculous victory of his coalition in the 1981 as a chance to build an alternative to Thatcherism/Reaganism. In hindsight, I wonder if Mitterrand ever had any "left" values at all.

As to PASOK...why didn't they just make a major effort to collect the back taxes?  I'll always wonder why they took the path of surrender rather than do the one thing that might have prevented the nightmare Greece has gone through in the last two years(yes, I know this is thread drift).  They should just have left the Euro, since nothing it gave them is worth the misery they've gone through in the past two years.  Those cuts won't ever be restored...the pensions won't ever be restored...what was saved that was WORTH saving?

(back to thread subject)as to "entryism"...

1)Is there any real evidence that QS has been infiltrated by Trotskyists?
2)Does Quebec(or Canada, for that matter)even HAVE any Fourth Internationalist types out there to do any entryism?

Unionist

There is no such thing as a "federalist left" in Québec. No one on the left defines themselves first and foremost by their infatuation with Canada. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't stepped outside in a while. This whole conversation is quite condescending. Québec will find its way without the generosity of those who would like to bestow upon us a new non-radical federalist left of centre party that no one is asking for.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I didn't say that "federalism is a right-wing cause" as an absolute statement.  What I said was that those who put federalism FIRST in terms of the list of political priorities in Quebec are mainly corporate Anglo types(with a tiny sliver of francophones, who would also be corporate and antiworker, thrown in)..."defending federalism" isn't the main point for much of anyone who's working-class, especially among the francophone working-class(which is basically almost all the working-class in Quebec, btw, other than those who are allophones).  The days in which federalism had any progressive implications in Quebec died when Robert Bourassa took over the PLQ.

There can be common left cause between people who identify at some level as federalists and those who identify at some level as sovereigntists...but not among those who put "preserving federalism" first before everything else and those who put sovereignty before everything else.

The point is to put together a group working for a common left agenda in Quebec, with social justice and workers'rights issues coming before the "national question".

And an NDPQ in which radicals are powerless(which I assume is what you want)is NOT going to be an NDPQ that has any reason to exist.  It would end up being just like the PLQ-that's what "moderation" always leads to.  Why would you hate radicals anyway?  It's not as if non-radical NDP'ers stand for anything.  The non-radical kind would cheer on Papandreou in Greece for his surrender to the austerity fetishists and would probably take part in driving Occupy encampments out of their cities if they held power in municipal governnments, like the "moderately progressive" mayor of Vancouver is doing.

Finally, why the hell would you EVER hold up Francois Mitterand as an example for anyone on the left or center-left?  You do remember that he's the one who got the French Socialist Party to completely abandon socialism and even watered-down social democracy and surrendered to the propertied classes on all major issues?  Mitterrand's time in power was fourteen years of worthlessness. He was only different from the right on a few trivial side issues that never ended up mattering to anyone.  And he disgraced himself further by being even more of a Cold Warrior than Reagan was, in a decade in which there was no reason at all to obsess about "The Communist menace", since the Soviet Union posed no menace to anyone in the Eighties.

There can't ever be a reason for the left or center-left to want to take the path of Mitterrand.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And I hope that you'll consider my posts in this thread as support for your views on the matter, Unionist.

KenS

Unionist wrote:

Québec will find its way without the generosity of those who would like to bestow upon us a new non-radical federalist left of centre party that no one is asking for.

Quebec will also find its way should that be bestowed upon it. Bets on whether a Quebec NDP will be rejected? I'll give you a good handicap on that.

dacckon wrote:

Tony Blair was in reality was just a dogmatic fool.

Best line on his emminence I have ever seen.

And while we are on the subject of things that have nothing to do with Quebec... the PASOK government could not just snap its fingers and start collecting taxes. The infrastructure for really collecting does not exist. Not that PASOK would have wanted to try... since big chunks of their base and supporters are among the scofflaws.

 

 

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

And I hope that you'll consider my posts in this thread as support for your views on the matter, Unionist.

Of course I do, and I appreciate the respect you've shown in your analysis.

 

lil.Tommy

I'm surprised no one brought this up: October 12th

http://www.legermarketing.com/admin/upload/publi_pdf/Provincial_political_Survey_LM-Le_Devoir-The_Gazette_Oct182011.pdf
 Question 15 - If there were a New Democratic Party at the provincial level in Québec, would you vote for this type of party?DK/Refuse - 46%

YES - 34%
NO - 20%
So there are already a good chuck of those polled who would indeed vote the a NPDQ... and plenty of room to grow in that Don't KNow group.
Does this change anyones mind about a NPDQ running? it would mean the death of QS i would expect, and possibly the Soft soverigntist/Labour support within the PQ
Whats odd/Hilarious is that 46% (the highest) of ADQist would vote NPDQ? huh?

genstrike

Ken Burch wrote:

(back to thread subject)as to "entryism"...

1)Is there any real evidence that QS has been infiltrated by Trotskyists?
2)Does Quebec(or Canada, for that matter)even HAVE any Fourth Internationalist types out there to do any entryism?

If their wikipedia article is any indication, QS, unlike the NDP, actually allows and encourages members to form "collectives" which promote their political views within the party.  Some of those collectives are explicitly Trotskyist, including Gauche Socialiste, which is the offical Quebec section of the Fourth International.

As for entryism, I actually find it ironic that people like me are constantly told to quit complaining about the NDP and join it and try to push it to the left, yet if I were to do that, people would complain about "entryism"

Really, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.  If you're a radical outside the NDP, you're a sectarian ultraleftist, if you're a radical inside the NDP, you're an uncooperative entryist.

Unionist

lil.Tommy wrote:

I'm surprised no one brought this up: October 12th

http://www.legermarketing.com/admin/upload/publi_pdf/Provincial_politica...

Question 15 - If there were a New Democratic Party at the provincial level in Québec, would you vote for this type of party?DK/Refuse - 46%

YES - 34%

NO - 20%

So there are already a good chuck of those polled who would indeed vote the a NPDQ... and plenty of room to grow in that Don't KNow group.

Does this change anyones mind about a NPDQ running?

Yup!! That does it for me!!! Where do I sign up?

 

KenS

Laughing

[doesnt change my mind either. doing anything now is a non-starter. later is later.]

Unionist

genstrike wrote:

Really, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Might as well get used to the feeling. Trust me, it will last a lifetime. Anyway, there are worse things than being damned.

 

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:

There is no such thing as a "federalist left" in Québec. No one on the left defines themselves first and foremost by their infatuation with Canada. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't stepped outside in a while. This whole conversation is quite condescending. Québec will find its way without the generosity of those who would like to bestow upon us a new non-radical federalist left of centre party that no one is asking for.

There is a federalist left in Quebec. 59 of them are now sitting as NDP MPs. Its not about anyone defining themselves "first and foremost by their 'infatuation (sic.)' with Canada" - I think many if not most progressives in Quebec would be more than happy to support QS if it stopped being so totally "infatuated with Quebec independence" and simply declared itself agnostic on whether Quebec should be independent or not and declare that it is 100% focused on economic and social issues.

Legeault is doing a great favour to centrist and right of centre Quebecers by letting than cast a vote that is not immediately turned into a proxy for a Yes or NO vote in a referendum...it would be nice if people on the left in Quebec had a similar escape hatch. Oh well i guess there is always the parti vert du Quebec - do they have a stance on secession or are they willing to let sleeping dogs lie?

Stockholm

Nycole Turmel has also always been a FEDERALIST - its a shame that she had to hold her nose and join a separatist party in order to have anyone to support in Quebec provincial politics.

If only Quebec Solidaire would simply SHELVE all this waste of time talk about more referendums and separation and focus like a laser beam on social inequality - their support could double overnight!

I'm still not clear why if someone is a federalist they are dismissed as "having an infatuation with Canada that they put before anything else", while if someone is a sovereignist - we are supposed to assume that it is a low priority for them. If sovereignty is such a low priority for "the left" in Quebec - why does QS insist on decalring itself to be a sovereignist party? Why not just take no position and declare the national question and all constitutional debate to be a "petty bourgeois obsession" that sidetracks the struggle of the proletariat from the real issues!

Pages

Topic locked