I'm telling you the Federalists are living in denial. The dreams of a reformed Canada are buried in Meech and Charlottetown.That may well be true. But the question is whether enough quebeckers care enough anymore to make it a driving issue for them.
Your're right, and frankly, Marois doesn't have the charisma to push it either. Not to mention that right now it's the least of our worries.
Just face it - sovereignty is DEAD. It was a passing phase in Quebec that peaked in the 70s and then had a blip in the 90s after the Meech Lake debacle - now its totally off the agenda to the average person. If having Harper as PM ranting about "separatists" etc... does NOTHING to increase support for sovereignty then nothing will. Marois doesn't have charisma and let's face it, there is no one waiting in the wings in the PQ who has any more charisma than she does.
If I were a sovereignist I would literally be counting down the days until Parizeau kicks the bucket - everything that guy has touched over the last 15 years has turned to shit. Between his racist comments on referendum night, to his comments about Quebecers being like lobsters boiled in a pot to his latest lunacy about trying to provoke a conflict with the rest of Canada during a recession as a way of jump starting the sovereignty movement etc... maybe in addition to Claude Morin, Jacques Parizeau is also a double agent working for the RCMP - every time he opens his mouth support for sovereignty plummets.
"Quote: "Early polls indicated that 67% of Quebecers would vote "No""
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995"
The wikipedia article doesn't site any source for this and I think they just made it up or made a mistake. Anyone can put whatever they want in wikipedia and unsourced information like this quite worthless.
Don't take your dreams for realities, you're not the first who's claimed that sovereignty is dead: Trudeau has, and it outlived him.
Look at it this way: there are three possibilities for Québec to advance in the constitutional cul-de-sac.
1. Sovereignty
2. A reformed Federalism
3. Status-Quo
Of those options, the second one is prefered by the majority, the first follows and the third one is very far behind (especially with the francophones). At the moment, what the federalist side is paying lip service to a reformed Federalism, but their actions all show they don't want to rock the boat. They know they can't possibly make Canada accept that Québec is a distinct nation, and as such, that we want to have more control over ourselves. As I said, they haven't even tried since 1992.
Now, we are forced in a status-quo (at best) that very few Quebeckers want. What will happen is that Ottawa will once again make decisions that will step on a lot of toes here, probably budget cuts on the Chrétien-Martin level. Just look at the culture cuts the Conservative have made and the bad reaction it got them.
But at the moment, Quebeckers see Ignatieff as a new hope for a new federalism. That's the main reason for the regain of confidence in the PLQ and Canada. Once he's in power however, people will soon realize he is nearly interchangeable with Harper.
I agree that it is way premature to say soveriegnty is dead. [Leaving aside the possibility that there may be no grounds ever for saying that with finality.]
But it may well be dormant for the long term- so much so that it likely remains dormant/declining even if the federalist continue to deliver below even low expectations.
There are three possibilities for Québec to advance in the constitutional cul-de-sac.
1. Sovereignty
2. A reformed Federalism
3. Status-Quo
Of those options, the second one is prefered by the majority, the first follows and the third one is very far behind (especially with the francophones)......
....we are forced in a status-quo (at best) that very few Quebeckers want.
I think that characterization of the 3 basic choices, their ranking, and thier interplay, is concise and useful.
I'm going to expand a bit on what you said that follows, and make it a bit more explicit.
What will happen is that Ottawa will once again make decisions that will step on a lot of toes here, probably budget cuts on the Chrétien-Martin level. Just look at the culture cuts the Conservative have made and the bad reaction it got them.
Implied is that over some kind of 'mid-range' time scale francophones acquiesce to the staus quo. This being in part a reflection that the majority are not enthusiastic about sovereignty, and as long as things aren't "bad", they'd rather not have the public space filled by questions of soveriegnty, recognition, federal/provincial power, etc.
But then, inevitableysomething comes along from the federalists of the moment that agitates them, such as Harper pissing them off royaly.
But the big question is what does that lead to.
You argue- more like set the stage without a fully explicit argument- that the continued provaocations lead them back to sovereignty.
But in the case of Harper it just led them to desert Harper, and a lot turned to the Bloc. Some also turned to the Liberals. But even those who turned to the Bloc... the BQ is so mushy that no one construes that as even a 'part of the way' move towards sovereignty.
What basis is there to see this provocation and reaction cycle as leading to anything other than a continuous shunting between federalist choices? [One choice ironically being the escape valve of the Bloc.]
at the moment, Quebeckers see Ignatieff as a new hope for a new federalism. That's the main reason for the regain of confidence in the PLQ and Canada. Once he's in power however, people will soon realize he is nearly interchangeable with Harper.
...and what reason to see these hopes, or 'contingent glow', invested in Ignatieff as being any different than what is happening in the rest of Canada? What reason to think that they won't react the same as everyone else, and as they have been for a few years now, when the air goes out of their particular Iggy baloon?
But at the moment, Quebeckers see Ignatieff as a new hope for a new federalism. That's the main reason for the regain of confidence in the PLQ and Canada. Once he's in power however, people will soon realize he is nearly interchangeable with Harper.
Hmmm, it seems comments of yours are diametrically opposed ideologically.
As you said this above:
"Ignatieff has already said he would give nothing more for Quebec."
How can Quebeckers see him as a new hope when he has stated he would give nothing more to Quebec?
No problem.
The vast majority of voters are not juggling the fine points- they are processing what is out there the most.
Harper has turned out to be beyond the pale to a high proportion of francophones who gave him a chance, Iggy is an empty vessel that is not Chretien or Dion, looks good, and speaks in a respectful and lauditory manner.
His recent comments that essentialy Quebec has enough already were under the radar... and may stay there until other warts Iggy has start becoming more visible.
And in line with my earlier comment: if they decide Iggy doesn't look so good, so they go back to voting for the Bloc. Which means nothing.
Where is all this latent anger, or even just 'pointy frustration?'
Since you post on this forum, I'll be assuming that you support the NDP, or at least several of its policies. And yet, the NDP has never come close to power, or to forming the official opposition. If the CPC screws up, people vote PLC, and vice-versa. I'm guessing you are hoping that the general population will eventually see beyond the veil of the Conservative-Liberal opposition, to see how the differences are mostly cosmetic, and that they will start voting for real change afterwards.
It's not any different for us Sovereignists.
And you're right, the Bloc is a pressure-valve for the frustration of Québec against the Federal government, that's why Lévesque always opposed the formation of a Sovereignist party in Ottawa. It made Canada acceptable for most Quebeckers, a side effect of having deputies defending Québec's interests instead of Liberal yes-men or Conservative minions. The disappearance of that security blanket would probably do a lot for Sovereignty, forcing the Federalists to try and make the Federation work, instead of sitting on their asses.
It would be great if the BQ would just fold up its tent and recognize that by being there it actually reduces support for Quebec sovereignty. But I'm not holding my breath.
Well, I personally don't argue that the NDP is going to arrive at the New Jerusalem because/when the alternatives are going to be exposed for what they are.
I had not noticed the parallel; but its obviously a common enough de facto expectation within the NDP, since I've argued against it [usually in its unaknowledged implict forms] numerous times.
Any thoughts on the race to be in this riding?
Or implications it has [beyond being an embarrasment/problem for the BQ].
I don't really see it as an embarassment for the BQ, maybe for Crête if he wishes to return. Then again, Duceppe also did something similar during the change of leadership at the PQ, and the electors didn't punish him for it (despite the best Conservative efforts).
You have to remember that, for many Quebeckers, especially Sovereignists, that our main government is the provincial one. While in the rest of Canada deputies move up from provincial parties to federal ones, in Québec it's actually the opposite. There is no stigma associated with trying to join the National Assembly from the Commons. In fact, going to the municipal level is also acceptable.
Now, will the liberals actually take the riding? I believe the Bloc will keep the seat easily, but it will be interesting looking at how the support for the Conservatives and Liberals will move. It might very well be a test for how well Ignatieff is received by the Francophones.
Well, I personally don't argue that the NDP is going to arrive at the New Jerusalem because/when the alternatives are going to be exposed for what they are.
Of course, we both have to continue working for what we believe in: it won't just land in our laps.
I don't know. If Dumont runs for the Conservatives, then it looks like a 2 way race between him and the Bloc. With not much of a test for the Liberals since they would not be contendors, and a 'Dumont effect' would distort things.
If Mario isn't the candidate, whole different thing. Since I think he'll be running, I'll chew on that when/if he doesn't.
As to what you said about the effect of Crete, I assume that would be true for sovereignists... but the Bloc can't win this seat with only the sovereignists. Maybe all Quebeckers are somewhat more practical/pragmatic, but anywhere else and Crete would have a hard time shaking the loser and or opportunist label [the latter for crawling back]... and even a new Bloc candidate might suffer some collateral damage.
Its hard to use Duceppe as a precedent- he had a ton of credibility to smooth his not very edifying pirouette.
If Crete ran for the BQ it would raise questions about why he resigned his seat in the first place causing an epxensive byelection just so he could run again.
Well, we all know why he resigned in the frst place: to run in the provincial by-election. Deputies move from the BQ to the PQ, rarely the other way around. I have no idea what he'll do now.
As for Mario, why would he run for the Conservatives? He was the leader of a party that he created himself, left politics after his defeat and is getting his own TV show. Why would he try getting elected in a party that is on a severe decline in Québec (they are polling behind the NDP)? They would only use up what credibility he has left and in the process he would link the ADQ's fate to the CPC's actions, which have been incredibly anti-Quebec since the election.
He could have done it in the last election, but right now? It would be a suicide for his political career and a deathblow to the ADQ.
Does Dumont care what happens to the ADQ?
Its an honest question.
Would he likely be among the people who think it has a future? Or is that only people actively clinging to what is left of the wreckage?
I would hope he cares about the ADQ, he created it.
Unless the CPC begins to offer increased autonomy for Québec (and alienate the ROC), for Dumont to run for them now would be a reversal of his Autonomist stance from the ADQ. It would seriously undermine his credibility in Québec. He has no reason to represent the CPC right now, not with Harper still in charge.
...
Just had a crazy idea... what if he joins the LPC? You'll agree with me that Ignatieff isn't far-off from Harper, and Dumont still holds enough personal charisma to really boost Liberal support in Québec. I would go as far as to say that, if this happens, we would see a red tide in Québec not seen since the age of Trudeau.
I'm back from my trip to Quebec.
The big news this week of course (other than St. Jean Baptiste) were the victories by the Charest Liberals in both by-elections. This is a blow to the PQ as Riviere Du Loup used to be PQ before Mario Dumont took it for the ADQ 15 years ago. Winning in both Montreal and Riviere Du Loup has made Charest the happiest he has looked in ages.
It is also a bit of a blow to the BQ. They are now without one of their long-term original MP's who had been in the BQ since 1993 and who ended up resigning only to lose. While the results are of course not directly transferrable to the federal level, it may also mean the BQ may not be as strong in this riding at the federal level next time as it has been in the past.
Actually, Rivière-Du-Loup was PLQ before the ADQ. Last time they voted for the PQ was in 1981. Before Dumont, they were a baromete district, always voting with the power.
Actually, Rivière-Du-Loup was PLQ before the ADQ. Last time they voted for the PQ was in 1981. Before Dumont, they were a baromete district, always voting with the power.
I see. 
Thanks for the information. I was just reporting what I heard on the Quebec news last night - they were saying it used to be a PQ riding.
Anyway, I think the Liberals may have a chance to improve their vote in this riding at the federal level next time as well.
I think your speculation above about Mario Dumont is interesting. Would he want to run for the Conservatives considering that they are in bad shape in Quebec? Or would he consider running for the Liberals instead since they are doing much better? I'm not sure if it would lead to a "red tide", but Dumont might be able to win a seat for them.
It would speak volumes about Michael Igantieff and the Liberals if a rightwing racist who also campaigned for the Yes side in the 1995 referendum like Mario Dumont decided to run for them.
Mario Dumont is racist? I'm not sure if we should throw terms like that around casually.
Anyway, I think it still might be a stretch for Dumont politically to run for the federal Liberals, but it's an intriguing possibility that WyldRage has suggested. Guess it depends on:
a) does Dumont even feel like running for ANY party right now?
b) does he think he would do poorly if he ran for Harper's Conservatives?
Dumont represents the extreme right in Quebec politics, it was his xenophobic campaign in 2007 that lef to all the reasonable accommodation controversy and he is also a major propoent of privatization and two tiered health care - then again, maybe he would be a good fit with the federal Liberals!
You mean alongside former ADQ MNA Claude Morin whom the Libs just nominated in the Beauce?
You mean alongside former ADQ MNA Claude Morin whom the Libs just nominated in the Beauce?
Denis Coderre and the Quebec federal Liberals certainly seem to be doing a better job than Dion did of attracting candidates and politicians from different parties to run for them.
Oh, well, if you'll take *anyone* I guess that is a plus ...
Do you think Dumont would be a plus or a negative for the Liberals, ottawaobserver?
Sorry, Debater, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about what would be best for the Liberals. If they want to sleep with right-wing xenophobes thinking it will get them ahead, then I guess that tells us a lot.
Though a lot of that ADQ "right-wing xenophobia" might simply have been political opportunism in the end. So if Claude Morin carries the Liberal banner, that may be no different from, say, ex-Communists in the post-perestroika Eastern Bloc running (and succeeding) as Social Democrats...
Sorry, Debater, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about what would be best for the Liberals. If they want to sleep with right-wing xenophobes thinking it will get them ahead, then I guess that tells us a lot.
You're getting off track into making personal smears on political parties. What was being raised here by a poster above was simply would it be an electoral or political advantage for Dumont to run for one party or the other? Would it be a positive or a negative for Dumont to run for the Cons, or a positive or negative for him to run for the Liberals?
Sorry again, Debater, I'm not even interested in the answer to that question. I guess if the Liberals want to recruit him I would have some detached interest in how that would be received, but apart from that I'm not knowledgeable enough about the Québec scene to have any kind of well-informed opinion on that subject.
Sorry again, Debater, I'm not even interested in the answer to that question. I guess if the Liberals want to recruit him I would have some detached interest in how that would be received, but apart from that I'm not knowledgeable enough about the Québec scene to have any kind of well-informed opinion on that subject.
You're not knowledgeable about the Quebec scene? I'm surprised to hear that. 
Because normally you take issue with those who project seat gains for the Liberals in the next election or who predict problems for the NDP in Quebec, and appear to write as if you know the scene well.
In the now closed thread on Gerry Caplan's piece I replied to something Kloch posted. It got cut off, and makes just as much sense here.
So....
Why should you, or any one, apologize for being a Liberal in the first place? This isn't supposed to be a NDP discussion board. The LPC is a legal-political party, and while we may not agree with them on just about anything, there's nothing morally wrong about expressing support. I argue with Liberal friends all the time. But the idea that you some one should be "attacked" for pretending to be a Liberal simply because you disagree with NDP policies seems vaguely Stalinistic in a grade 3 kind of way.
For the record, I think the objections are in particular to Debater's style of argument. And its not to the fact that he/she is a Liberal, but rather the appearance at least of being disengenuous [just being 'objective' / not a Liberal, etc.]
That said, I think we're all getting used to each other. For myself, I still think Debater is being disengenuous about his/her point of view, but the dropping of implicit or explicit 'I'm being objective / you are a partisan' helps.
