Anglo-Canadians' are terrified of the Bloc

Given Mr Harper's attacks on Quebec and the Bloc, I doubt most Quebecers would believe him again if he said he was as concerned with Quebecers as he clearly is with westerners.

 This is a Confederation. An assemblage of provinces, with a national government. Many of the hard decisions are left to each province, with common interest items like defence, etc, left to the federal government.

Any provincial party/government, after a fashion, is sovereignist. That government looks out for their province and fights the feds for more money. That is the Canadian way.

The fact that Quebecers needed their own party to defend their interests (or felt they did, and given the history of the old Conservative Party and the Libs, they probably did) just shows that the national parties lost the confidence of the people of Quebec.

The fact that the Bloc stepped up to support a coalition government, with the best interests of Canada in mind, should show (notwithstanding the bluster and rhetoric of Mr Duceppe) that the Bloc could be evolving into a regional party well suited to defending Quebec interests IN government (on the sidelines true, but vowing to support a consensus economic and social policy).

Kind of like the Reform Party or "Canadian Alliance" represented western interests (and still does, masquerading as the Conservative Party of Canada).

Why is it okay for the west to have a regional party, but not anywhere else?

As an Ontarian, I don't feel that we have a "right to rule". I do believe in democracy though. That being said, I a shocked at the reaction out west to this loss of confidence in Mr Harper.

How the heck did this become a "national unity crisis"? The fact that the bulk of the Cons come from out west and feel entitled to rule the rest and take that away and they act like a kid having his toy taken away.

Talk of "western separatism" being on the rise if this "illegal" (not illegal actually) government change takes place is galling. They want to separate if they can't dictate to the east? Sound familiar to what they are alleging will happen if the coalition goes ahead?

I support the coalition and the natural course of Canadian parliamentary government. Lose the confidence of the house and a no-confidence motion, lose your opportunity to govern! It is about time Canada started doing this, instead of wasting 300 million dollars every time a PM wants to break the fixed date election law, call an election and government shop, in the hope of getting a majority before the stuff hits the fan on the economy!

remind wrote:

 

And summer is still propaganda shedding, I see for the CPC.

___________________________________________________________

 

Not at all.  I simply posted a quote from a newspaper.  I'm very firmly in the anyone but conservative camp and would rather have a shaky coalition than have the Cons in power. 

 I just think it's best not to kid ourselves that it is anything but a [b]shaky[/b] coalition on very unsteady ground.  The Bloc, for now, has given its word that it will vote with the NDP/Libs on confidence matters for the next 18 months.  But if 6, 9, 12 months from now, the Bloc decides that their interests are better served by voting against the coalition, I believe they will do so. 

What happens when the Libs have their convention (is it still on?) and Iggy (or whoever) replaces Dion?  This could happen in April or May I think.  Will the coaltion still work?

Summer wrote:

I just think it's best not to kid ourselves that it is anything but a [b]shaky[/b] coalition on very unsteady ground. 

Don't think anyone is kidding themselves at all. However in the immediate we must rally public support for the coalition, not try to undermine it, as you last couple of articles posted have tried to do.

 

Quote:

The Bloc, for now, has given its word that it will vote with the NDP/Libs on confidence matters for the next 18 months.  But if 6, 9, 12 months from now, the Bloc decides that their interests are better served by voting against the coalition, I believe they will do so. 

So what? The immediate is what matters, not what may or may not happen in the future.

Quote:

What happens when the Libs have their convention (is it still on?) and Iggy (or whoever) replaces Dion?  This could happen in April or May I think.  Will the coaltion still work?

 
Who cares, as again that is not an immediate concern, the only concern at this moment, right now, is that the coalition get as much public support as possible.

This show of solifdified non-confidence will stop Harper's actions dead, nothing else will.

People should be spending this afternoon writing to the media demanding time be given to the majority official opposition, if Harper is being given time tonight, and not purchasing it. If they do not, they are in breach of democracy and are working to destroy Canada as much as Harper is.. if Harper has purchased time then people should be donating money to the coalition parties so that they can purchase time.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Summer wrote:

 I don't think that pointing out challenges is akin to undermining the coalition.  Would you prefer that I pick up some pom-poms and a blind fold and simply cheer them on? 

Only one brand of propaganda dissemination is acceptable to some, so the answer I believe, would be yes.  The alternative is to risk being called out as a CPC shill, or heaven forbid, of having some hidden agenda.  Its funny how it works though.

Summer wrote:

I think we're just looking at it differently.  I think that the future is more important than the immediate.

The immediate is the future.

Quote:

I think it's important to consider the consequences and decide whether it will ultimately be better or worse.

Too bad you have not done so then. Because when you do inform yourself, from other than msm pap that you are reguritating, and especially when what you are reguritating is Harper positive pap,  it should be quite clear to you what would be worse for Canadians and our democracy.

And Harper is not what is going to be good for the the future, under any circumstances. In particular not good for Canadian women.

 

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Ah, summer, aligning yourself with someone whose sole purpose here is to attack another poster obliquely, as apparently they lack the courage to do it otherwise, indicates even further where your head is at, say nothing of your anti-progressive contencious positions on women's rights that you have stated here before.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Summer wrote:

Ah yes, the famous, "you're either with us, or with the other guys" bit.  Popular tool of false dichotomoy/logical fallacy makers everywhere. 

Of course, nodding along in subservience to the present doctrine will certainly spare you a little grief.  I’ve been called worst for straying beyond the obligatory mind meld, i.e. war criminal, collaborator, etc, so I can tell you from experience that it’s a wiser use of time to pick and choose with whom you will interact with on the board.  But yes, I wouldn’t get caught too often being seen in agreement with anything I’ve said.  No good will come of it.

Anglo and franco phones should be terrified of CPC supporters and government, apparently Nathan Cullen's  riding office was fre bombed last night! can we say terrorist loud enough?

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Ya that was just after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour. Come on, Ken!!

Oh.  so Bluto Blutarski is now a babbler?  Who'd a thunk it?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Our Demands Most Moderate are/
We Only Want The World!
-James Connolly

It might be a good idea to start talking about who the Quebec ministers would be in a Coalition cabinet. This would help show voters that the Bloc would not be in the cabinet. (Not that it would bother me if they were, but it's a matter of being clear on what's on the table.)

So, Quebec babblers, tell us what you think.

Assume they are going to dispense with Ministers of State, and have a larger cabinet but a smaller ministry: 29 ministers, rather than Harper’s 38. From the West nine, Ontario nine, Quebec seven, Atlantic four.

Seven from Quebec: six Liberals:

Denis Coderre

Irwin Cotler

Marlene Jennings

Marcel Proulx

Pablo Rodriguez

Bernard Patry or Stéphane Dion or Justin Trudeau or Raymonde Folco or Francis Scarpaleggia

NDP:

Thomas Mulcair

From the West five Liberals:

Ralph Goodale (Saskatchewan)

Ujjal Dosanjh (BC)

Joyce Murray (BC)

Senator Claudette Tardif (Alberta)

Anita Neville (Manitoba)

Four New Democrats:

Dawn Black (BC)

Nathan Cullen (BC) 

Linda Duncan (Alberta)

Judy Wasylicia-Leis (Manitoba)

Ontario:

Seven Liberals:

Michael Ignatieff

Bob Rae

Gerard Kennedy

Martha Hall Findlay

John McCallum

Ken Dryden

Carolyn Bennett or Judy Sgro or Ruby Dhalla

Two New Democrats:

Jack Layton

Joe Comartin or Charlie Angus

Atlantic provinces: Liberals:

Dominic LeBlanc (NB)

Scott Brison (NS)

Wayne Easter (PEI)

Todd Russell (Nfld & Lab.)

Wilf Day wrote:

 

 

Dosanjh is extremely partizan, I like him but I do not know how that will work. I think him and Fry are very capable but VERY partizan too. They are in very tight seats too where a ministry could make the difference.

But putting in an NDP hater might not make for good will in the voting community. 

Denice Sovoe would make a great minister in environmental or housing issues. Problem with her is she is unassailable. Minister or not, she will win again.  I am used to coalitions and how the strategy goes in STV, I guess it is a lot different in first past the post.  A lot more chance and guesswork involved.

Brian 

From the West five Liberals:

Ralph Goodale (Saskatchewan)

Ujjal Dosanjh (BC)

Joyce Murray (BC)

Senator Claudette Tardif (Alberta)

Anita Neville (Manitoba)

Four New Democrats:

Dawn Black (BC)

Nathan Cullen (BC) 

Linda Duncan (Alberta)

Judy Wasylicia-Leis (Manitoba)

Ontario:

Seven Liberals:

Michael Ignatieff

Bob Rae

Gerard Kennedy

Martha Hall Findlay

John McCallum

Ken Dryden

Carolyn Bennett or Judy Sgro or Ruby Dhalla

Two New Democrats:

Jack Layton

Joe Comartin or Charlie Angus

Atlantic provinces: Liberals:

Dominic LeBlanc (NB)

Scott Brison (NS)

Wayne Easter (PEI)

Todd Russell (Nfld & Lab.)

All this started with Harper lying to the Canadian public. and then using the ctv television network to promote the lies. He created division in the country for a purpose. Most here have the brains to figure this out. Unfortunately the majority of Canadians DON'T and rely on media to educate them. In this case they had country-dividing lies shoved down their throats and they swallowed every bit of it.

Now if the message was Harper is a lying power hungry maniac bent on destroying the country at any cost including but not limited to treason, espionage ,bribery etc. The reaction would be a lot different.

You would think tho that Canadians would put pieces together and ask themselves questions like "Why did they make a conservative media hack a senator"? or ‘Why is it when conservatives sleep with the bloc it is promoted as a national unity thing but when someone else does it's seperatism"? I have totally given up on Canadian intelligence when it comes to these matters. Whatever the media tells them is what they follow and believe like real sheep. Hence the term "sheeple"...

I used to think we were one notch better than the gullible USA...Harper has proved we are even more gullible...at least the US has tossed there Neocon leader out on his ass. Canada is still waiting for the TV to tell them to do the same here...just utterly pathetic.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

Unionist wrote:

I think Canadians would be far more willing to see Gilles Duceppe in a coalition cabinet than the Bloc itself would.

I think you're quite right, as to the majority of people I know. And I suspect the majority in Ontario and Atlantic Canada would be more open to Gilles Duceppe in a coalition cabinet than the Bloc itself would. Out west, maybe not. 

Unionist wrote:

I understand your point about showing graphically that the Bloc isn't there.

Actually, I'm really just wondering who are the most likely six Quebec Liberal MPs to get cabinet positions.

 

panhead wrote:

At some point, I think that we will have decide if we are Canadian above all else and put the welfare of the entire country before the interests of individual provinces.

Would you abolish municipal governments as well? What about Aboriginal self-government - are you tired of those annual debates as well? Should they decide if they are "Canadian above all else" too? And if not, what - the rest of us go back to Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.?

I'm not sure what it means to say that one is "Canadian above all else". I am a number of things above being Canadian - human being and worker spring to mind. If being Canadian above all else means I have to close my eyes to the legitimate aspirations of people for self-determination and not to be bullied and bossed around, then I would proudly proclaim myself "Canadian below all else". But I don't think being Canadian means that.

"Actually, I'm really just wondering who are the most likely six Quebec Liberal MPs to get cabinet positions."

 Who says there would be six Liberal MPs from Quebec in cabinet? I suppose that it would make send that out of a total cabinet of 24 - one quarter or six should be from Quebec - but since NDP MP Tom Mulcair is certain to be one of the 6 NDP cabinet ministers in that scenario - there would probably be 5 Liberals from Quebec - who they would be is quite predictable: Cotler, Coderre, Dion,  maybe Marlene Jennings, maybe Pablo Rodriguez and maybe Marcel Proulx that reptile from Hull etc...

panhead wrote:

Being a human being and worker first, you should have no problem in any restructuring of the political system within these borders, or any others for that matter.

No problem at all. For many issues that concern people's daily lives, I would like to see far more power and resources devolve to local and regional entities.

Given your obvious scorn for the right of the Québec people to self-determination, however, which youappear to relegate to "demagoguery", I would consult you about the restructuring but I definitely wouldn't put you in charge of it.

Which leaves unanswered my question about Aboriginal peoples. Should they, too, decide whether they are "Canadians above all else"? Serious question.

I am uncomfortable with any intervention about which parties do not deserve to sit in Parliament. That is the beginning of the end of democracy and a surefire recipe for armed struggle by the disempowered.

Stockholm wrote:

  Who says there would be six Liberal MPs from Quebec in cabinet?

How do you fit the numbers needed into a cabinet of 24? The West needs to be well-represented. I can't make it work. The coalition agreement provides for 24 plus the PM, but contemplates another four being added: 3 more Liberals and one more New Democrat. That works better for everyone. So 29: 9 west, 9 Ontario, 7 Quebec, 4 Atlantic.  

Stockholm wrote:

there would probably be 5 Liberals from Quebec - who they would be is quite predictable: Cotler, Coderre, Dion,  maybe Marlene Jennings, maybe Pablo Rodriguez and maybe Marcel Proulx that reptile from Hull etc...

The first question is Dion. He is not in the Liberal shadow cabinet. Is he expected to retire from politics?

Marlene Jennings for sure: as Deputy House Leader, she ranks high.

Pablo Rodriguez is critic for the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, and represents everywhere east of Montreal. But he's in a Montreal riding, you say? Yes, but he's a Sherbrooke boy, like Jean Charest, went to University there and started his career there, became President of the Young Liberals of Canada (Quebec), and then presided over the Liberal Party of Canada (Québec section), with contacts across the province.

Marcel Proulx is their only MP from outside the Montreal area. He's been in the House 10 years, and before that was 1993, Mr. Proulx became political assistant and then director of operations for Marcel Massé, the then MP, and in 1997 when Mr. Massé was President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Proulx became his Chief of Staff. Being a veteran counts for something.

But the sixth would be who? If not Dion, maybe Patry, Garneau, Scarpaleggia, Trudeau?

Unionist wrote:

Buddy Kat, I understand your frustration, but don't blame Canadian intelligence. The TV has convinced [b]you[/b] that Canadians love Harper and hate the coalition notion etc. But the fact remains that a very substantial majority of Canadians voted against Harper and his policies, and it was the bought-and-paid-for Governor-General who chose, very deliberately, not to allow the House to vote when it was already scheduled to do so.

The fact that Canadians didn't have a single party to place their confidence in has more to say about our FPTP system and the inadequacies of the parties themselves.

In short, I would blame just about everyone [b]except[/b] Canadian voters for the current state of affairs.

 

 

 

 

Well I don't see any evidence of free thinking Canadians anywhere out here in western Canada I just see sheeple that follow each other and get their directions from the media period. Here is an example: Look at Alberta, the media is so pro conservative that the people there will vote for a stick wearing a blue tie with a pull cord that says" I'm conservative and you are a dummy" and they will vote for it. It's true and it's because the media tells them too, simple as that. That is a valid point that the majority find Harper and his neocon values distasteful, hence the reason a coalition scares him death..it represents the real majority.

In Saskatchewan they vote on how a person looks for crying out loud, like a frigging beauty contest. Any little tory brochure that comes in the mail is treated like the gospel...despite the propaganda and lies...it really is sad to see. I would like to believe the majority of Canadians got something between their ears other than tory propaganda but I don't see it out west , that's for sure.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

Since when do I support the (US) American model?

No, I mean Québec society, not just the descendants of Tremblays and Bouchards. For example, Amir Khadir is not particularly an "old-stock" or "pure-laine" Québécois, nor is Maria Mourani.

Yes, there are several Aboriginal nations in Québec. At least 11, I'll have to check on the number. They are utterly entired to self-determination.

I don't give a flying frig whether you agree with me.

"No, I mean Québec society"

 

Despite Khadir and Mourani, the majority of ethnic minorities consistently vote for a federalist cause. It's highly misleading to suggest that Quebec society on a whole is supportive of French first policies. The majority of the support for sovereignty finds its base among the so called old stock francophones, and like the Northern League, or any other nationalist struggles, despite attempts at expanded inclusion, the sovereign cause in Quebec is still rooted in ethnic and linguistic nationalism.

This might be a productive sentiment in a largely homogenous nation, but in a Canada which is a tapestry of cultures, I find the idea antiquated and distasteful, which are both inferior sentiments to the guarantee of a highly decentralized federation which will never be in a position to exercise its self-determination. As I said, if Canadians prefer this route, then Quebec should claim its sovereign status along with any other takers. If not, then faux progressive parties like the Bloc should be removed from Canadian Parliament as they obviously hold no allegiance for the institution, the people it represents, or the flag it flies. The seperatist cause has been defeated on two different occasions and in my opinion, it's time to move on instead of harping on emotional strings that offer no practical results. We are an overtaxed nation as it is, I don't think we need to be spending these billions on this massive governmental system that has proved itself ineffective, especially when the money could be better spent on medicare or the environment instead of financing the Kleins and Quebec trips to Europe where they get to play nation state.

Indeed, an angryphone! Ha!

"French first"? That is Le Front national, not the PQ, the BQ, and certainly not my party, Québec solidaire.

The Northern League (Lega Nord) is indeed an autonomist party, but it is an autonomist party supporting the richest part of Italy, more like the Alberta separatist types - though there is more historical basis to the different regions in Italy, and also very much an anti-immigrant and rightwing party, more akin to ADQ, though much farther right. Of course they have the right to sit, though.

I have no interest whatsoever in arguing with anti-Québécois bigots. Go fuck yourself.

I'm not a bigot, nor am I anti Quebecois. I'm expressing a point of view without the intent to insult anyone, nor with any disrespect to others.

I think that perhaps, you might need to follow your own advice in your closing statement lagatta as it might alleviate some of your obvious frustration.