babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I'm wondering when the bulk of the NDP's Quebec caucus will fracture into 'Bloc Solidaire'. Any thoughts on who might lead their departure?
They won't - not any more than the Newfoundland Liberal MPs will desert to form the NL party. One of the most under-reported stories coming out of Quebec is that the vast majority of Quebec NDP MPs are dyed in the wool federalists - many are non-francophones who come from or have lived in other countries and provinces. They are a totally different breed from the Bloquistes they replaced.
So - immigrants are federalists. Non-francophones are federalist. "Dyed in the wool." "Totally different breed."
What an arrogant, ignorant, stereotyping, anti-Québec post.
Once again, I advise the new and innocent to pay no attention to anything Stockholm says about Québec. It's a shame that some of his posts may show up on the rabble.ca domain in Google searches. But we have people working on that.
What gives you grounds for making such a sweeping statement?
I keep saying that I am waiting for Quebec supporters to form riding associations. Then I will read with interest the policy resolutions coming from them. In BC different ridings have different cultures and send quite different resolutions to conventions. It all depends on who the party activists are in any riding association. That to me should be the focus of the party because that is where grassroots democracy resides and where organizational strength arises from.
I have for years wished that the provincial wings and the federal wings in BC were separate. In BC the only way to join the federal party is by joining the provincial party. Sounds to me like that system would be very unhelpful to building a real functioning federal party in Quebec.
I read this discussion with interest, but as a Quebecer, I do have one question for the proponents of a provincial (latin for "for the vanquished") NDP in Quebec.
What's so great in this Royal Dominion of Canada for me to forego the dream of being "maître chez nous" and the continued existence of my homeland? I imagine a strong federalist party would have a convincing answer to this.
Watch out, bouchecl. Some geniuses here will tell you that every vote for the NDP on May 2 was a vote for Canada! Oh, and also every vote for the Liberals and Conservatives and Greens... It's difficult sometimes for a Quebecer's voice to be heard, even on this discussion board.
I fully expect strong reactions to my previous post :) I thought about posting a couple policy issues ripped from this morning's Le Devoir (like this one, this one and that one) to get a taste of what would a Quebec NDP agenda be, but it would have required a strong grasp of Quebec's political culture, doctrine and history. But that would be unfair for most commenters on this board (you and a few others excepted...). So I ended up posting an "easy" question.
EDIT: Added samples
A strong federalist party would be capable of talking Quebecers out of their dreams. I believe that as much as I believe that a strong social democratic party can convince conservatives to vote for them. Sorry I don't think the NDP is up to either task. Frankly as far as I am concerned if Quebec voters want to stay in Canada they will if they don't then they won't. It is really simple to me. Quebec self determination is a Quebec issue and both you and Unionist are right that any federal party wading in will find themselves in quicksand very quickly. To me there are two self evident truths about the "Quebec issue". The first is that every time there is a referendum the voters are nearly evenly divided. The second is that the divide is not along left/right lines. So to me the NDP wading in on constitutional issues can only lead to less support because any definitive stand will bother some of the left supporters who are clearly divided on the issue.
To be blunt: If Quebec left Canada, Canada as a country would likely be politically farther right than the United States. That would have political repercussions (likely bad, but possibly good) having an isolated left-leaning Quebec in a right-leaning North America.
The election results in Canada (without Quebec) would have been:
2006: 114 (C), 90 (Lib), 29 (NDP) - Conservative Minority
2008: 133 (C), 63 (Lib), 36 (NDP), 1 (Indp) - Conservative Majority
2011: 161 (C), 44 (NDP), 27 (Liberal), 1 (Green) - Conservative Majority
Throw in the new seats for Ontario, BC and Alberta and we'll end up with a situation like Japan - a right-wing government almost continually for 54 years, until 2009. While Quebec would have an NDP government right now. I think many of us would move to Quebec if such a situation were to occur, making Canada even more right-leaning. While this scenario is tempting, I caution those who would lean this way. At least we have a fighting chance to have a left-leaning government in Canada with Quebec as part of Canada - a fighting chance to stop tar sands development and to stop natural gas fracking.
When has Canada (with Quebec) ever elected a left-leaning federal government? As for what is possible in 2015, four years from now - I think the best that can be hoped for is a Conservative minority, unless the country is mobilized somehow to vote massively against Harper - but 60% voted against Harper last May, and he has a majority gov't. Until some form of PR can be enacted, things will remain the same, making Quebec sovereignty even more appealing. Four more years of Harper... I can't see Quebec putting up with this bullshit much longer.
The only Left option in Quebec at the provincial level had their conferece last wknd:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Qu%c3%a9bec+solidaire+wants+language/5842616/story.html
Synopsis of some policy into the next election:
- Creating a State bank for Quebec
- Creating a universal retirement plan and minimum income guarantee for anyone over age 18.
- No support for expanding bill 101 in CEGEPs; But also want to push learning of english in french schools
- Supported a proposal against making the knowledge of English a hiring requirement unless it is shown to be indispensable for a position.
Clearly, there's no reason for the NDP to challenge a party like that in Quebec politics, especially since a Quebec NDP would probably be challenging it from the finicky, tighfisted anglophone social-democratic right.
The focus for the NDP in Quebec should be on maintaining and strenghtening support for its federal MP's there. It doesn't hurt those MP's for QS to grow(and let's face it, the only reason to found a Quebec NDP would be to try to crush QS-there's no positive, left case for going there for any other reason).
The NDP will have way more influence in Quebec politics without a QNDP. Right now the NDP has built a coalition between LPQ, PQ, and QS members, taking side as has been accused in the latest election will just create a wedges between activists in the party. Even the CAQ has NDP voters turning to it, 60 percent of those CAQ is drawing to it.
Instead of taking sides its should be building a unofficial coalition of supporters from all Quebec parties within itself with the goal of insuring bi partisan progressive cooperation. In time the NDP could have unparrelled influence, abit weilded subtly, on all the parties in Quebec, that way no matter who wins, we'll have dippers invovled in the Quebec Government giving us allies always.
Also no Quebec wing right now, means more potiential fundraising flowing to the NDP sas we have no need to share it with a provincial wing.
Let me add that there was quite a bit of reckless lending in the crisis.
http://pragcap.com/germany-is-also-to-blame-in-the-euro-crisis
Why should they have to compete? As I understand, the CAQ is in the process of merging with the ADQ, in spite of ideological differences. As part of the agreement, the four MLA's the ADQ has, a long with a few independents, will be the CAQ's inaugural caucus. It's not official yet, but it seems almost certain. So a provincial NDP in Quebec could do the same by merging with QS. Amir Khadir would be the first MLA for the Quebec provincial NDP if it went like this. And if such were the case, then the federal party wouldn't have to put as many recouces into building it, since it would already have a base to grow from. The next question is, if such a party were created, who would lead it? Mulcair would be the obvious front-runner if he looses the federal leadership race. But his past in the PLQ would probably make many in QS uneasy about serving under him and joining a party led by him. If he wins the federal leadership of the NDP, or if he looses but decides to stay in federal politics, then who else would be best fit to lead it, in the event of its creation? Any Quebecers have an opinion for who it should be, or if such a merger would be a good idea?
"...serving under him"??
Interesting notion of a political party. Kind of like the military, or a monarchy?
QS doesn't have a leader at all, and you want to have a discussion about who should "lead" an impossible merger between a nonexistent and unnecessary provincial NDP with QS?
I suggest you. After all, it's your idea! Possession is nine points of the law.
I'm sorry for any lack of knowledge I may have about politics in Canada. I only became interested in Canadian politics during the last federal election, and I've been following politics up there like crazy ever since, but there's still a lot I don't know. And why would a provincial NDP in Quebec be unnecessary? As it's already been pointed out, 34% of Quebecers said, in a poll, that they'd vote for it if it existed; QS is currently polling at around 9%, which is more than twice what they got in 2008, but not nearly as much as a provincial NDP would get. And by "serving under him," I meant to be in a party led by him. I do at least know how political parties work in a parliamentary system. Sorry if my wording implied a military or monarchy.
This NDP-Q talk is rather colonialist for the most part don't you think? I've lost count how many times on this thread that a non Quebecer has said something that is either nonsense or something that should be left to the people of Quebec to decide. QS is all Quebec needs for a left party. It's actually got a superior structure than the NDP. No leaders, but spokepersons, the ability to organize platforms within it. It's borrowed from the new generation of (mostly) non-sectarian European parties to the left of social democracy. Instead of enforcing Anglo-Canada's left on Quebec, I'd rather they enforced their left on us. If we ever get PR or the NDP and Libs merge than I think English Canada will have to look to QS for a guide on how to structure a new socialist party.
I'm not from Quebec, and I agree. Why not build the pan-Canadian left by working with the left-wing manifestation that Quebeckers themselves have chosen? If the Conservatives did not need to form a provincail Parti conservateur du Québec but were happy to work with the ADQ, why can't the NDP work with QS?
That would be nice but I really can't see say Mulcair if he were to win the leadership align the NDP with a political party that gives an open platform within it to Communists and other radical left currents. Amir Khadir is possibly also the most openly anti-Israel elected politician in the country. Turmel took out a membership to support Francoise David though, and I bet some of the Quebec MPs and their staff are sympathetic if not members of the party. It will be interesting to see what happens, but I'm not holding my breath.
Setting aside briefly questions about whether it should happen in the first place, how about Alexandre Boulerice for leader of a hypothetical NDP-Q? Duceppe teased him on TLMEP for having been a member of Québec Solidaire, but he didn't take the bait.
The above two comments highlight an important difference between QS and the NDP.
In the last federal election, QS spokespersons openly encouraged voting for whoever could stop Harper - and they took heat from the Bloc for including the NDP in that. QS never said, "oh, don't vote NDP, they're a bunch of federalist right-wing social democrats".
The NDP, on the other hand, seems incapable of embracing actual differences of opinion on major issues (cf the crushing and public humiliation of Libby Davies for stating the simple truth and for saying she supported BDS) - and they are incapable of leading a united front on key questions facing the people, because they may dirty their hands with separatists or people who favour strategic voting or people who are too left-wing or people who once said the wrong thing about 9/11 or who advocate legalization of cannabis or who stand up in the Holy Senate chamber silently holding a sign saying "STOP HARPER" or ...
So you see, Aristotleded24, it's much too dangerous for the NDP to work with people like QS. Whatever they have could be contagious. Can't be too careful.
How can you be 'incapable' of what you call a 'united front' when most of us think the whole idea from the ground up is an unfortunate distraction- whoever the putative/imaginary partners in 'unity' might be.
From another thread:
I think it is fair to say that what she calls 'strategic voting' includes what you bestow the more uplifting label of 'united front' onto.
Let's put it differently, since you think the term "united front" is a "distraction" (I'm sure you don't mean it, but I won't create a straw man out of it).
By the way, please try to grasp that a call for QS and the NDP to work together is hardly a call for "strategic voting". You may have forgotten that QS is a provincial party.
Jack Layton was capable of reaching out - more than once - and looking for a parliamentary coalition to make advances for the Canadian people, even working with separatists to do so.
Jack Layton captured the heart of many Quebecers by always proudly answering "yes" when asked if he would entertain coalitions, accords, agreements to help defeat the forces of Harper conservatism.
Jack Layton even said he disagreed with the expulsion of Buzz Hargrove, in the midst of a blood frenzy, although he didn't need to comment on the issue at all.
Jack Layton, although he stuck with his party's pro-Israel policy and "apologized" to the Israeli ambassador, rejected the lusty calls to publicly denounce Libby Davies and even remove her as deputy leader.
I knew Jack Layton.
You, sir, are no Jack Layton.
Neither of us are.
We are expressing things consistent with different political agendas we have. Which is what politics is about. Which is what all the pluralistic forms of contention in the public space [more or less my idea of 'politics'] is about.
And neither of us do it like Jack Layton would.
Which means what now?
And just to be clear- I think the term 'united front' is a very honourable one that has served us well.
I'm just not going to fall down and worship any time someone waves the words around. You might not like that, but I do not really see how you can have a problem with it.
[And you may have noticed that I am characteristicaly- maybe even chronicaly- unimpressed by the mere fact in itself of people 'saying the right thing' or using the 'right' words.]
Ken - rather than talk philosophical generalities, why don't you declare, in 2 words or less, whether you think the NDP should reach out and cooperate with progressive forces in Québec - starting with QS? My answer, in case you missed it, is "YES".