Cameron on Quйbec
Sat, 2007-03-24 05:45
#1
Cameron on Quйbec
Sat, 2007-03-24 05:45
#2
I know I shouldn't be, but I was nevertheless surprised by the arrogance of this column. The next time there is an election in BC I must remember to submit an article explaining how people in Vancouver think because I have seen a poll.
Robert
St John's, Newfoundland
Sat, 2007-03-24 05:52
#3
Is this the column you're referring to, Robert?
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/politics.shtml?x=58092] Duncan Cameron [/url]
I should point out that Duncan lived in Quebec for many years and only quite recently moved to BC. He's a political scientist and has vast knowledge of politics in all parts of our country.
Sat, 2007-03-24 05:58
#4
N.Beltov
Cameron has made some forecasts in his article that can easily be tested after the Quebec election. He might be wrong but that's hardly arrogant of him. What am I missing here?
Sat, 2007-03-24 06:00
#5
Wow. You registered July 10, 2001, and just posted for the first time. I admire your restraint!
Sat, 2007-03-24 06:04
#6
On re-reading the article, I think I understand Robert's point, although I might not have used the word "arrogance". It's not one of Duncan's best (and I do like his items), not least because it is based in its entirety on a dubious on-line poll and what the party leaders say about each other. Kind of a lazy way to do analysis.
Sat, 2007-03-24 06:14
#7
Boom Boom
I think Duncan's column is, as usual, right on.
I'm actually hoping for a PQ minority Monday night, because (as Don Newman suggested yesterday) that might tempt Duceppe to change his mind Tuesday and vote against Flaherty's budget, forcing us into an election Wednesday. A federal election right now might be our only opportunity to deny Harper a majority. It appears to me that the longer he stays in office, the more Harper is able to fool the electorate into believing he's not so scary, after all. And, as an added bonus, if Harper just manages another minority, that might convince the Cons to question his leadership and vote against it (the Cons are trying to cover up his latest arrogance on Quebec - article [url=http://www.thestar.com/News/article/195267]here[/url]).
Sat, 2007-03-24 09:11
#8
M. Spector
Why would anybody vote PQ after this?
quote:
If he is elected premier, Parti Quйbйcois Leader Andrй Boisclair says he will amend Quebec's electoral law to make it impossible for veil-wearing Muslim women to vote without showing their faces to identify themselves.
If I were in Quebec I'd vote for [url=http://www.socialistvoice.com/Soc-Voice/Soc-Voice-103.htm#Quйbec_solidaire’s__25_concrete_and_realizable_commitments]Quйbec Solidaire[/url].
Sat, 2007-03-24 09:28
#9
Yeah, I'm hoping for a PQ minority too, although I'm not sure about a federal election.
If Boisclair doesn't win, I think he'll be ejected from leadership pretty quickly. Even if he DOES win (with like, 30% of the vote), most people will still think he's undeserving of the leadership.
Sat, 2007-03-24 17:01
#10
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Why would anybody vote PQ after this? If I were in Quebec I'd vote for [url=http://www.socialistvoice.com/Soc-Voice/Soc-Voice-103.htm#Quйbec_solidaire’s__25_concrete_and_realizable_commitments]Quйbec Solidaire[/url].[/b]
Charest said all voters must properly identify themselves, a position backed by Parti Quйbйcois Leader Andrй Boisclair and Action dйmocratique du Quйbec Leader Mario Dumont. Link [url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/quebecvotes2007/story/2007/03/22/qc-niqab200703....
And it's already been [url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/quebecvotes2007/story/2007/03/23/qc-niqab200703..., regardless.
Sat, 2007-03-24 18:20
#11
ceti
It's amazing how reverse this is. The whole issue has been blown out of proportion. As such, it is similar to that town that banned stoning, reflecting the fear of French Quebecers as opposed to some imminent threat of cultural submergence.
It is actually telling and sad that all leaders have had to posture on this, as opposed to looking at the issue and dismissing it for what it is -- a symptom of a far greater malaise and poisoned political atmosphere tacking hard to the right.
Sat, 2007-03-24 20:02
#12
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]Charest said all voters must properly identify themselves, a position backed by Parti Quйbйcois Leader Andrй Boisclair and Action dйmocratique du Quйbec Leader Mario Dumont....And it's already been decided, regardless.[/b]
And you're happy with that?
It's been "decided" as a result of improper political pressure on the chief returning officer, who was forced to reverse the sensible decision he made initially.
The PQ promises to take the matter out of the hands of the chief returning officer in future by passing legislation that will require presentation of photo ID before you can vote.
It's another step on the road to a total "security state."
Sat, 2007-03-24 20:07
#13
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]
The PQ promises to take the matter out of the hands of the chief returning officer in future by passing legislation that will require presentation of photo ID before you can vote.It's another step on the road to a total "security state."[/b]
You may not be aware that all Quebeckers have health care photo ids. They must present it to get health care, or else pay.
But I see your point. It's a slippery slope. Next they may ask to see photo id when you're out with the family for a Sunday drive!
Sat, 2007-03-24 20:32
#14
M. Spector
We have those kind of health care cards in Ontario as well.
It's not the same thing as a drivers licence, though. For one thing, it's against the law in Ontario to demand to see a health card as ID for any purpose other than obtaining medicare.
For another thing, it's wrong to exclude citizens from voting simply because they don't have photo ID. That's always been recognized to be true, which is why you can vote on swearing an oath as to your identity and residence if you aren't on the list.
Homeless people, for example, should be able to vote without having to show photo ID.
Sat, 2007-03-24 23:31
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]I'm actually hoping for a PQ minority Monday night, because (as Don Newman suggested yesterday) that might tempt Duceppe to change his mind Tuesday and vote against Flaherty's budget, forcing us into an election Wednesday. A federal election right now might be our only opportunity to deny Harper a majority. It appears to me that the longer he stays in office, the more Harper is able to fool the electorate into believing he's not so scary, after all. And, as an added bonus, if Harper just manages another minority, that might convince the Cons to question his leadership and vote against it (the Cons are trying to cover up his latest arrogance on Quebec - article [url=http://www.thestar.com/News/article/195267]here[/url]).[/b]
From what I've read, it seems that this would result in a rightward shift of Quebec politics, given the direction of the Charest government and that the right-wing ADQ will hold the balance of power. Further to that, I don't see how a PQ minority would cause Duceppe to change his mind on the budget. It's not like the PQ would have the mandate to do as it pleased, and I don't see what Duceppe would have to gain in an election anyhow.
I don't think that Canadians will think of Harper being "not scary" the longer he stays in office. I think the fact that they elected him says they think he's "not scary" already. And I don't see that an impending election would result in a Harper defeat or even come close to that possibility, given that Harper could easily ride his budget (and election fatigue) to victory. The only people calling for an election right now are those who would never vote for him anyways. And of course, if Harper were to win, we'd have to have [i]another[/i] election to try and get him out, and on it goes.
Certainly Harper needs to go, but in order for that to happen, there needs to be an election at the specific time when the factors that would contribute to Harper's defeat would be there. That simply isn't in the cards right now. Personally, I'd rather wait until Harper's elimination of the budget surplus starts to show up, combined with a full-blown recession that may very well be in place by the end of the summer. That won't be nice for him at all.
Sun, 2007-03-25 04:38
#16
ceti
During the 1995 referendum, poll workers were demanding passports and citizenship cards in order to filter out immigrants.
This is so different from where I now live in Trinity Spadina where they rarely check ID, and go by your registration card only you get in the mail.
This is a key [url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/24/muslim-veil.html]article[/url] about the latest raked up controversy.
I hate the Journal de Montreal, but a lot of people read it.
Sun, 2007-03-25 05:09
#17
quote:
Of all current political leaders from Quebec, only Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quйbйcois, has consistently flown left-wing colours.
Tghis part of Cameron;s analyis is dead wrong. If Duceppe is so "consistently leftwing" how do you explain the following:
*The BQ votes for the first Conservative budget in 2006
*The BQ votes with the Conservatives on the Softwood Lumber sellout
*The BQ votes with the Conservatives to stop an NDP motion backed by the Liberals denouncing the growth of poverty in Canada and to increase the federal minimum wage to $10/hour.
*The BQ announces it will vote for the 2007 Conservative budget.
Maybe cameron calls this being consistently leftwing. I call it Gilles Duceppe being Stephen Harper's regular fuck-buddy!!!
Sun, 2007-03-25 05:13
#18
quote:
I'm actually hoping for a PQ minority Monday night, because (as Don Newman suggested yesterday) that might tempt Duceppe to change his mind Tuesday and vote against Flaherty's budget, forcing us into an election Wednesday. A federal election right now might be our only opportunity to deny Harper a majority.
You've gotta be kidding. Why would you be so eager to have an election at a timke when Harper has all his ducks in order what with the budget etc... If the election is delayede, there is a greater chance that events beyond Harper's control can intrude. Remember how in March and April 2006 everyone thought that the CPC was so in control that they woukld rule for the next decade. Then there was a long hot summer of bad news from Afghanistan, verbal miscues on the situation in Lebanon and a new public focus on the environment that caught the Tories flat-footed. I think that if we wait, there is a good chance that unexpected things will erupt over the summer and fall that could totally scuttle the Conservatives electoral chances.
Sun, 2007-03-25 06:19
#19
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
And you're happy with that?
Why are you so testy? You singled out Boisclair on this issue; all I did was point out that Charest and Dumont take the same position.
Sun, 2007-03-25 06:29
#20
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
You've gotta be kidding. Why would you be so eager to have an election at a timke when Harper has all his ducks in order what with the budget etc...
I'm making the argument that Harper does [i]not[/i] have all his ducks in a row. He is not positioned right now for a majority. The budget was enjoying a 'halo effect' in those polls that came out right afterwards. Harper is playing us; he knows that the longer he remains in office under his present minority mandate, the more the electorate will become accustomed to him, and the more likely they will be to give a majority later, and especially more so if the Liberal's train wreck continues. If an election can be forced right now, Harper gets denied a majority for the second time, and questions about his leadership style surface.
As for Duceppe triggering all this by changing his mind and voting aginst the budget, Duceppe has already said several times he waants to show that federalism does not work, and especially so for Quebec. He will throw a monkey wrench and gum up the works when he feels like it. He has already claimed all of the credit for obtaining this equalization money from Ottawa, and if the PQ manage to achieve a minority government tomorrow (Charest looks desperate this weekend, outright begging Quebecers not to elect a minority), then, buoyed by that success, Duceppe would be tempted to vote 'no' on Tuesday, thus beginning a march towards his goal of sovereingty for Quebec. Maybe even another election in Quebec within a year's time. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2007-03-25 07:42
#21
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]I think Duncan's column is, as usual, right on.I'm actually hoping for a PQ minority Monday night, because (as Don Newman suggested yesterday) that might tempt Duceppe to change his mind Tuesday and vote against Flaherty's budget, forcing us into an election Wednesday. [/b]
Should the BQ change their mind on the budget, the LPC will support it. No-one but the CPC and maybe the Greens are ready to go.
Sun, 2007-03-25 08:09
#22
Boom Boom
It would be an astonishing flip flop for the Liberals to support the budget, even if the BQ decide to oppose it. The Liberals are the main Opposition party, and their job is to oppose, especially when Dion has already said it's a bad budget and he definitely can not support it. Isn't politics great? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2007-03-25 10:09
#23
On the one hand, I think the rather odious anti-Islam sentiments that have reared their ugly head in this campaign are really dangerous and frightening.
On the other hand, people - especially Liberals - cheat during election campaigns and we already do a piss poor job of stopping them. I wish I could say that we lived in a country where no one would ever consider stealing a vote - but it ain't the case.
I think it's reasonable to ask people to produce photo ID when voting. The person giving them a ballot should be able to confirm their identity. If, for whatever reason, they're unwilling or unable to do this some reasonable accomodation should be made. I don't know what that is but I'm sure (outside of the opportunistic political rhetoric) something could work.
Sun, 2007-03-25 10:18
#24
M. Spector
Many people do not drive and do not have passports. They should not be compelled to get one in order to vote.
A photo ID requirement is just another way to exclude people from voting.
Sun, 2007-03-25 11:17
#25
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Many people do not drive and do not have passports. They should not be compelled to get one in order to vote.A photo ID requirement is just another way to exclude people from voting.[/b]
I'm repeating myself, but in Quйbec (which this thread is ostensibly about), everyone with 3 months' residency aged 16 and over has a photo id RAMQ (Rйgie d'assurance mйdicale du Quйbec) card. Exceptions are made only for people who are (for instance) disabled and can't get to the distribution facility. So, photo id would not exclude anyone from voting in this province.
And, those who don't have an id card with them can still use the existing procedures to confirm their identity. Not having an id card cannot stop you from voting.
[ 25 March 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sun, 2007-03-25 12:21
#26
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Not having an id card cannot stop you from voting[/b]
That is how it ought to be.
But the only reason to require women to lift their veils at the polling station is to compare their face with a photo ID. It's not as if the poll clerks are going to recognize every voter by their face alone.
If photo ID is not essential to be allowed to vote then neither is showing your face. One is of no consequence without the other.
The original decision by Elections Quebec was that Muslim women would be allowed to vote without removing the veil if they signed a sworn statement attesting to their identity, showed two pieces of identification and were accompanied by someone who could vouch for their identity. The "identification" in question obviously would not need to be photo ID. I see nothing wrong with proceeding in that fashion.
But the politicians want to make women show their faces, which only makes sense if they are also going to require photo ID, since showing your face to a stranger proves absolutely zilch about your identity.
ETA: I have just discovered the [url=http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC... and Mail's excellent editorial on the subject[/url], which says essentially the same thing.
[ 25 March 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
Sun, 2007-03-25 14:16
#27
joshmanicus
Was I reading things right to assume that most girls who wear the veil wouldn't care about showing their faces to prove their ID?
Sun, 2007-03-25 14:50
#28
Well, the point is moot since girls can't vote, Joshua. Only women are allowed to vote. Girls aren't old enough.
Sun, 2007-03-25 15:43
#29
quote:
Originally posted by Joshua Kubinec:
[b]Was I reading things right to assume that most girls who wear the veil wouldn't care about showing their faces to prove their ID?[/b]
No women have complained to date, as far as is known publicly. All Muslim spokespersons whose comments have appeared in the media so far have said this is a non-issue for them, because Muslim women who wear niqab regularly lift them (some prefer it be done in presence of a woman) for passports, banks, drivers' licence, health care cards, etc.
Sun, 2007-03-25 15:45
#30
Back to the column. Any attempt to analyse this election along left-right lines is pointless: that's not what what's going on here. The issues are regional and sociological, and involve frustration with 30 years of the same-old-same-old, and the perception that it's the same damn group of elites drawn from the Montreal chattering classes who run things, regardless of who actually wins the elections.
Sun, 2007-03-25 15:47
#31
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]
The original decision by Elections Quebec was that Muslim women would be allowed to vote without removing the veil if they signed a sworn statement attesting to their identity, showed two pieces of identification and were accompanied by someone who could vouch for their identity. The "identification" in question obviously would not need to be photo ID. I see nothing wrong with proceeding in that fashion.
[/b]
There is nothing wrong with proceeding in that fashion.
What is wrong is:
1. A public authority deciding to create an "accommodation" [i]that has not been requested[/i] (as has been confirmed over and over again by Muslim spokespersons, without exception).
2. A sensationalist newspaper trying to create an anti-Islamic xenophobic hysteria out of this.
3. Opportunist politicians making comments on this issue which are questionable.
4. The same public authority, who made a gratuitous "accommodation" directive, rescinding the directive based on some media hysteria.
All this is wrong.
Sun, 2007-03-25 16:54
#32
joshmanicus
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Well, the point is moot since girls can't vote, Joshua. Only women are allowed to vote. Girls aren't old enough.[/b]
My bad.
Sun, 2007-03-25 17:26
#33
quote:
Back to the column. Any attempt to analyse this election along left-right lines is pointless: that's not what what's going on here. The issues are regional and sociological, and involve frustration with 30 years of the same-old-same-old, and the perception that it's the same damn group of elites drawn from the Montreal chattering classes who run things, regardless of who actually wins the elections.
What is frustration with elites, if not left poltics i.e. power lies with the people.
What kills me about Charest is how he could trot out his right wing stuff from day one in power in a province where there was no demand to say, privatize child care. He succeeded in putting parents on the streets, and public servants.
And now the tax cuts, the right wing nostrum par execellence.
He had Bourrassa as a model of how to govern, and he choose Mulroney instead. This from a guy who went into Parliament as one of 211, and saw his party reduced to 2, for many of the same reasons as have create the protest vote going to the ADQ. He learned nothing about how popular right wing parties are when people figure out what they are actually doing.
Sun, 2007-03-25 17:37
#34
quote:
What kills me about Charest is how he could trot out his right wing stuff from day one in power in a province where there was no demand to say, privatize child care. He succeeded in putting parents on the streets, and public servants.
And now the tax cuts, the right wing nostrum par execellence.
and yet all the protest votes are going to the ADQ which thinks that Charest isn't rightwing ENOUGH!!!
Sun, 2007-03-25 18:11
#35
When people leave a government in disgust at election time, they send a protest message, they express a dissenting view. That is what happened when the Reform Party rose in the West, and took the NDP down at the same time in 93. Mulroney had summgled in his right wing agenda with the FTA, the elimination of 7 of the ten personal income tax brackets, and the Charlottetown de-centralization. Reform picked up on the third, and the GST anger, and crushed every Tory.
Directing anger is not easy for the left to do in Quebec, since Quebec Solidaire is unknown and untested, much like Reform in 88 when they went nowhere.
Between elections is when the left has to mobilize, and build support for a project. If not, then a Harris comes along, and we go backwards.
The Quebec election has become a personalized leadership race, no one has a programme other than Quebec Solidaire.
Mon, 2007-03-26 03:56
#36
quote:
Originally posted by Joshua Kubinec:
[b]My bad.[/b]
[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2007-03-26 05:47
#37
quote:
Originally posted by duncan cameron:
When people leave a government in disgust at election time, they send a protest message, they express a dissenting view. That is what happened when the Reform Party rose in the West, and took the NDP down at the same time in 93. Mulroney had summgled in his right wing agenda with the FTA, the elimination of 7 of the ten personal income tax brackets, and the Charlottetown de-centralization. Reform picked up on the third, and the GST anger, and crushed every Tory.
Directing anger is not easy for the left to do in Quebec, since Quebec Solidaire is unknown and untested, much like Reform in 88 when they went nowhere.
Between elections is when the left has to mobilize, and build support for a project. If not, then a Harris comes along, and we go backwards.
The Quebec election has become a personalized leadership race, no one has a programme other than Quebec Solidaire.
You don't understand what the focus of resentment really is. Think of where QS is strongest - Montreal's Plateau district. There is no place in Quebec that has higher social cachet; it's the epicentre of Montreal urban hipsterism. They have almost nothing in common with the people in Chaudiиre-Appalches.
Mon, 2007-03-26 05:59
#38
Quebec Solidaire do not have a lot of support in Westmount I would wager.
Resentment against the PLQ and the PQ is widespread outside Montreal. We shall see today how much this benefits the ADQ.
The absence of an effective opposition or government representing people explains the disaffection I think.
Mon, 2007-03-26 06:15
#39
quote:
Originally posted by duncan cameron:
Quebec Solidaire do not have a lot of support in Westmount I would wager.
I would wager that the ADQ has even less. I'm going to keep track of this one!
eta: And living in Westmount is not an effective way of getting social cachet, is it? I mean, who gets called a 'Plateau Rhodesian'?
[ 26 March 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Mon, 2007-03-26 07:24
#40
FYI: The actual riding of Westmount-St. Louis includes the whole downtown core of Montreal including the McGill ghetto. The City of Westmount includes a lot of more modest housing (as opposed to mansions) in the south that is a lot like the Annex in Toronto.
Mon, 2007-03-26 07:47
#41
the Westmount-St Louis riding goes right to the Main, and includes Ste Famille and parts of St Louis areas
a real mixed-income riding like the old Cabbagetown-Rosedale mishmash, whatever it was called ...
.
[ 26 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]