Jump to navigation
I didn't see this being discussed any where else.
Until recent years, Quebec was proudly social democratic. In the 1970s and 1980s, two former Liberal premiers, Robert Bourassa and Claude Ryan, as well as Parti Quйbecois founder Renй Lйvesque and his all-powerful finance minister Jacques Parizeau, claimed the same left of centre lineage
With respect, I think this is revisionist history. It's true Bourassa had an interest in using the state to advance economic development (so did W.A.C Bennett in B.C and Peter Lougheed in Alberta, by the way) at least as far as hydro electric power, but to call him a social democrat is a bit off. I'd say this is even more so for Jacques Parizeau.
For one example, both of them endorsed Brian Mulroney in 1984, 1988 and 1993, free trade and all. (edited: Parizeau of course endorsed the B.Q in 1993, I know Mulroney didn't run in 93 as well)
That changed when Lucien Bouchard took over the premiership from Parizeau and sought province-wide support for a deficit zero austerity program
So, is Mr. Cameron saying that left wingers oppose balanced budgets? I realize that Mr. Cameron might just have a problem with the way the P.Q went about balancing the budget (the austerity program), as opposed to balanced budgets in general, but this doesn't make that entirely clear. Let's not forget that even Jack Layton has said he opposes seeing the federal budget going back into deficit.
To the degree that politics has shifted to the right in the last 25 years, at least as far as economics goes, it's because the monetarists where shown to be correct that there is no long term trade off between inflation and unemployment (or at least, not much of one and not in the way that economists had previously thought).
The result of losing this fight (for the left) and gaining this economic insight (for society) has helped Canada to only have only one recession since the big 1980s recession (Canada never actually went into a recession in the early part of the decade). For all but the ideologues, this was a fight worth losing.
I would argue that this shift to the right on economics ended in the 1980s and was put to rest when the Brian Mulroney, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher left office.
Since then, however, there has been a fight between those on the right who want ever lower taxes, and those on the left who support improved public services. The right has engaged this argument dishonestly by lying that 'tax cuts pay for themselves'.
This debate mostly revolves around values rather than economic 'right and wrong' so, it is the proper place for politics. I would also argue that, to the degree that the public tells pollsters that they'd rather see improved services rather than tax cuts, it is also an argument the left should be well placed to win.
[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Adam T ]
Also, describing Claude Ryan as a "former premier" would REALLY be revisionist history.
The swing to the right in Quebec really began under Levesque himself.
sort of being discussed, [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=006392] Quebec elections...[/url]
Who is a social democrat? Both Bourassa and Parizeau spoke out against free trade before changing their positions for political reasons. Bourassa wanted Meech and did not want to oppose Mulroney, and Parizeau went back into politics, and saw how free trade would weaken the Canadian federation. On the debt issue, social democrats see public ownership as good, and foreign invesment as a more expensive and dangerous alternative. When you "balance the budget" do you include borrowing charges for public investment in your balance budget, or do you have a separate capital budget? Parizeau always wanted a separate capital budget. He devised the Caisse model. Bourassa, Levesque, and Ryan presided over industrial policy measures than are similar to those taken in European social democracies and compare favourably with our NDP governments. Of course they are at the provincial level.
This journal article disagrees with your comment regarding the position of Robert Bourassa on free trade:[url=http://tinyurl.com/2kxu4w]http://tinyurl.com/2kxu4w[/url]
My understanding is that Robert Bourassa was generally a firm believer in free trade both in principle and in practice, and, also, according to that article, was not a great believer in the state playing a leading role in the economy, except in areas where he had a grand vision (like hydro electric power).
Jacques Parizeau supported free trade, along with many other seperatists, because he believed it would guarantee access to U.S markets.
these guys are bourgeoisie , of course they supported free trade... what bourgeousie does not?
If they are social democrates then it is just more prove that social democricy does not lead to abetter social structure as it does not lead to the dismantling of capitalism ... as in the private ownership of the modes aof production and the profit system being replaced with public ownership so that society can be aranged around the benefit of all....
[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: trippie ]
The swing to the right has affected Canada and ALL Canadians, this started with the LIE of NAFTA and has been perpetuated by some of the biggest corporations in the world who have politicians in their pockets, of which it is arguable that harper is the largest corporate sponsored PM it has been Canada misfortune to have. The proof lays in the fact that the Government of Canada is NOT RUN BY POLITICIANS but by corporate entities. Quebec may be the only saving grace we have just by being REAL SOVEREIGNISTS. The rest of us have capitulated to the lie of rampant unregulated greedy capitalism as being the solution to economic stability.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/politics.shtml?sh_itm=824906a6d224eb760afc9a38a3b25... Duncan Cameron [/url]
of which it is arguable that harper is the largest corporate sponsored PM it has been Canada misfortune to have. The proof lays in the fact that the Government of Canada is NOT RUN BY POLITICIANS but by corporate entities. Quebec may be the only saving grace we have just by being REAL SOVEREIGNISTS. The rest of us have capitulated to the lie of rampant unregulated greedy capitalism as being the solution to economic stability.
I believe that audited reports from both the CPC and the LPC in the last election showed that CPC received more donations than the LPC, but in much smaller increments, whereas the LPC received less donations but in much larger increments.
The rich seemed to support the LPC more, so to suggest that Harper is the "largest corporate sponsored PM in history" (especially since corporate donations have been illegal for 5 years or so - essentially taking away any advantage he might have had of being "corporately sponsored" in contrast to previous PM's) is completely and utterly incorrect.