May 29, 2010
The Toronto Sun proposes proportional representation to end the dominance of the BQ:
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2010/05/28/14178831.html
Editorial: Twenty years around the Bloc
Sat, 2010-05-29 04:50
#1
Editorial: Twenty years around the Bloc
Sat, 2010-05-29 08:57
#2
Boom Boom
The thought of more Liberal or Conservative seats in Quebec under PR is first good argument I've heard so far for keeping FPTP! 
Sat, 2010-05-29 09:32
#3
Ha, I agree! The neanderthal Toronto Sun supporting PR to drive politics to the right and drive Québec out of confederation! Which toxic waste dump do these characters get their brains from?
Sat, 2010-05-29 09:58
#4
I don't even remember what position the Sun chain took on Ontario's MMPR referendum. Does anyone else?
Sat, 2010-05-29 10:39
#5
I can't even remember what position the ONDP took.
Sat, 2010-05-29 11:04
#6
Ha, I agree! The neanderthal Toronto Sun supporting PR to drive politics to the right and drive Québec out of confederation! Which toxic waste dump do these characters get their brains from?
It's the progressive vote that's split these days.
Sat, 2010-05-29 11:55
#7
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Where The Parties Stand On MMP
The Conservative Party now appears to be formally against mixed member proportional. An email distributed from the Conservatives is encouraging its members to vote against MMP because, "the alternative proposed system known as MMP will increase the influence and power of the political party and its leader while decreasing the independence of MPPs." John Tory, the PC leader, also came out yesterday stating he will be voting against MMP, "because I don't think we need more politicians, because I don't think we need appointed politicians and because I think we should get on with parliamentary reform first." There are, however, prominent Tories on both sides of this debate.
The Liberal Party in Ontario and its leader, however, have been very quiet on this issue. If self-interest and power were the only guiding principles one would expect that the Tories would be the most opposed to MMP since historically they would have had the most to lose while the Liberals would have gained more over the last 50 years but not more over a shorter period of time. This may explain the Tories opposition and Liberals silence. However, there are prominent Liberals on both sides of this debate.
The smaller parties such as the NDP and Greens have strongly endorsed MMP in the Ontario referendum. The Greens would certainly be a big benefactor of MMP. The NDP believe they would also benefit from MMP, but in the longer run I am not as certain about that. There do not appear to be many, if any, prominent NDPs or Greens in opposition to MMP. Posted by Anonymous at 9:50 AM 0 comments 
Sat, 2010-05-29 13:10
#8
Catchfire
What a stupid [s]article[/s] [s]editorial[/s] screed.
Where this country would be without the Bloc I don't want to hazard.
Sat, 2010-05-29 15:01
#9
So let me get this straight? Most of the people on this thread are in favour of the BQ having a disproportionate number of seats?
I thought most people here were in favour of PR.
Why is PR wrong when it applies to Quebec? And why should that drive it out of Confederation?
Sat, 2010-05-29 15:09
#10
While the people of Quebec can have the Bloc representing their interests, Canada can "have Quebec" as a partner. Any threat to that relationship would lead to a successful drive for sovereignty. Complex, eh? And around here, enough people can empathize with the Bloc and their supporters, good social democrats all, that we live with your concern for logic. (shrugs)...would it be incorrect to say "Gallic shrug"?
Sat, 2010-05-29 15:58
#11
Who says that the Bloc represents Quebec's interests anyway? That's the line from the BQ, but since the majority of Quebecers don't actually vote for the BQ, that is very much open to debate.
In any event, that is a sub-issue.
The main issue is that if we are going to have proportional representation on the federal level, it would apply to all provinces.
Sat, 2010-05-29 16:14
#12
remind
Do any of you know that The Sun and Global TV are partnering with Shell to tell us how wonderful coal bed methane (aka natural gas) extraction is for the environment?
From this perspective anything that The Sun advocates should be run from as far and as fast as possible.
Sat, 2010-05-29 17:28
#13
That's a silly comment, remind.
You don't discount a good idea just because you don't like the source, particularly when the source is in favor of something you yourself are in favor of.
Sat, 2010-05-29 17:58
#14
remind
Oh you aren't really calling me "silly" are you?
Will give you a chance to remove that comment before i report you, and if you do I will edit my post to reflect your removal of such a incorrect, sexist, demeaning and labelling term.
Sat, 2010-05-29 18:56
#15
Who says that the Bloc represents Quebec's interests anyway? That's the line from the BQ, but since the majority of Quebecers don't actually vote for the BQ, that is very much open to debate.
In any event, that is a sub-issue.
The main issue is that if we are going to have proportional representation on the federal level, it would apply to all provinces.
We can assume, of course, that there will NEVER be a future circumstance in which the majority of Quebecers would vote Tory. The humane and progressive values of the vast majority of voters in Quebec guarantee that. It's only a small minority of Anglo-Canadians who drink the "market values" Koolaid.
Where did you EVER get the idea that, if only the Bloc were sidelined, Quebec would vote right-wing? You have repeatedly acted as if every temporary Bloc setback means the day of Quebec chaining itself back in the intellectual dungeon of the Duplessis era was only a moment away. Please accept reality, Augustus: Quebec will always be progressive and secular.
Sat, 2010-05-29 20:42
#16
The main issue is that if we are going to have proportional representation on the federal level, it would apply to all provinces.
That's not an issue, that's a given. However, since the territories have only one seat each, it might not apply to them.
Sat, 2010-05-29 21:21
#17
And IF hell freezes over, we will have PR at the federal level before a brave province paves the democratic way.
P.S. I say that the Bloc represents Quebec's interests. You are talking about capital's interests, Augy, from behind the virtuous screen of a noble stand for true democracy. What sandbox sophistry.
Sun, 2010-05-30 00:08
#18
Maysie
Augustus, "silly"? Really?
Stop it.
Sun, 2010-05-30 00:45
#19
In Augustus's defence, he said the comment was silly, not remind.
OTOH he is not up on the history of this debate, my memory says that remind is not in favour of PR in any event.
Sun, 2010-05-30 01:01
#20
FPTP is meant to punish voters in general. It's why we have the low voter turnouts that we do in this country.
One person should equal one vote. It's done in advanced democracies all the time.
Sun, 2010-05-30 01:08
#21
I can't even remember what position the ONDP took.
The Liberals insisted that no party campaign for or against as was true of the BC Liberal government's mishandling of the issue. Both Pinocchio McGuilty and John Tory the Tory were as silent about MMP as they were when talking real issues during their two or three grand total public appearances.
Howard Hampton endorsed the citizens assembly decision for MMP right there in the ONDP's web site. The link was nailed up here by me countless times for those interested.
Sun, 2010-05-30 13:20
#22
And IF hell freezes over, we will have PR at the federal level before a brave province paves the democratic way.
P.S. I say that the Bloc represents Quebec's interests. You are talking about capital's interests, Augy, from behind the virtuous screen of a noble stand for true democracy. What sandbox sophistry.
The majority of Quebecers don't vote for the BQ, so it's inaccurate to say that they "represent Quebec's interests". Stop repeating BQ talking points.
The majority of Quebecers have voted Conservative in the past, during the Mulroney years, and they majority have also voted Liberal, during the Trudeau years.
Sun, 2010-05-30 13:26
#23
bagkitty
JKR: you might want to edit your post. Your assumption about a fair vote indicates that 10 seats would be lost by the BQ, however you are showing a loss of 20 seats.
Sun, 2010-05-30 13:29
#24
JKR: you might want to edit your post. Your assumption about a fair vote indicates that 10 seats would be lost by the BQ, however you are showing a loss of 20 seats.
38% of 75 is 28.5 That's the amount of seats the BQ should have won in 2008 based on their vote if proportional representation was used.
Sun, 2010-05-30 13:41
#25
bagkitty
Augustus, I was commenting on JKR's arithmetic. In his first column he shows the BQ with 49 seats, in his second column, he shows 29 seats with a parenthetical indication that 10 seats have been lost. That is a 20 seat loss by my count (will recheck, but need to take my socks off LOL). 
"Oh look, some lovely nits to pick over here!"
[ETA (edited to ask, as opposed to edited to add): are arithmetic flames as lame as spelling flames?]
Sun, 2010-05-30 14:08
#26
Augustus, I was commenting on JKR's arithmetic. In his first column he shows the BQ with 49 seats, in his second column, he shows 29 seats with a parenthetical indication that 10 seats have been lost. That is a 20 seat loss by my count (will recheck, but need to take my socks off LOL).
I think he meant to write a loss of 20 seats, since 29 seats would be the correct number of seats with 38% of the vote, which is what the BQ got in 2008.
Sun, 2010-05-30 14:25
#27
Oh you aren't really calling me "silly" are you?
Will give you a chance to remove that comment before i report you, and if you do I will edit my post to reflect your removal of such a incorrect, sexist, demeaning and labelling term.
I said the comment was silly, not you personally.
And there is nothing sexist about it.
Falsely accusing other people of sexism is just as wrong as being sexist.
Sun, 2010-05-30 15:24
#28
Why does the word SOBER leap to mind here. And BEANS.
Sun, 2010-05-30 21:33
#29
PR by province won't happen. Period.
Of course, Liberals, Conservatives would be delighted to see the Bloc representation reduced by 40% but too many conservatives in Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC and Liberals in Ontario and the Maritimes would lose their jobs, which would be hard to swallow just to spite the "evil separatists". And hung parliaments would become the rule. But hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Sun, 2010-05-30 21:43
#30
PR by province won't happen. Period.
Of course, Liberals, Conservatives would be delighted to see the Bloc representation reduced by 40% but too many conservatives in Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC and Liberals in Ontario and the Maritimes would lose their jobs, which would be hard to swallow just to spite the "evil separatists". And hung parliaments would become the rule. But hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Hung parliaments (minority governments), or coalitions.
Sun, 2010-05-30 22:14
#31
We can assume, of course, that there will NEVER be a future circumstance in which the majority of Quebecers would vote Tory. The humane and progressive values of the vast majority of voters in Quebec guarantee that. It's only a small minority of Anglo-Canadians who drink the "market values" Koolaid.
Where did you EVER get the idea that, if only the Bloc were sidelined, Quebec would vote right-wing? You have repeatedly acted as if every temporary Bloc setback means the day of Quebec chaining itself back in the intellectual dungeon of the Duplessis era was only a moment away. Please accept reality, Augustus: Quebec will always be progressive and secular.
I'm not drinking the 'Quebec is progressive' Kool-Aid just yet. I know too many people of colour who have experienced Quebec racism at its worst.
I could see the Conservatives making gains in Quebec by running on an anti-immigrant platform.
Sun, 2010-05-30 22:24
#32
Hung parliaments (minority governments), or coalitions.
Of course. But both the Cons and the Bloc would vote against PR. People tend to forget that the biggest losers in such a scheme would be the Conservatives with a -22 (they would lose approximately 20 in the West, 9 in Ontario for a gain of 7 in Quebec). Seeing the way Harper has trouble breaking 38%, it would be against their better interest in entertaining such an idea.
Although the Bloc and Cons seldom see eye to eye on anything, but they would probably vote together against such a scheme, because they both lose out. I don't know how the Cons would sell it, but the Bloc would certainly frame PR as a anti-Quebec ploy (and they would be right, if I understand the Sun op-ed piece correctly).
Sun, 2010-05-30 22:42
#33
Scott Piatkowski
I can't even remember what position the ONDP took.
Sure you can. You're just trying to make a point that you think they should have done more.
But, the NDP was restricted from spending any money promoting MMP and, moreover, it had been told by the proponents that any attempt to make electoral reform "an NDP issue" would be seen as counterproductive.
Sun, 2010-05-30 22:52
#34
I know too many people of colour who have experienced Quebec racism at its worst.
Yeah, sure you do. Must have been a relief when they moved to one of the other non-racist provinces.
I could see the Conservatives making gains in Quebec by running on an anti-immigrant platform.
Yeah, sure you can. You must have missed how the last party that tried that (the ADQ) got demolished in the very election after they and their little fascist leader Dumont created their anti-immigrant provocations.
Your smearing of the Québec people as racist is pretty regressive - actually, it qualifies as hate speech. I advise you to put up or shut up. In the most friendly way possible, of course.
Sun, 2010-05-30 23:28
#35
And IF hell freezes over, we will have PR at the federal level before a brave province paves the democratic way.
P.S. I say that the Bloc represents Quebec's interests. You are talking about capital's interests, Augy, from behind the virtuous screen of a noble stand for true democracy. What sandbox sophistry.
The majority of Quebecers don't vote for the BQ, so it's inaccurate to say that they "represent Quebec's interests". Stop repeating BQ talking points.
The majority of Quebecers have voted Conservative in the past, during the Mulroney years, and they majority have also voted Liberal, during the Trudeau years.
Yeah, and in the past there was Duplessis. I was fortunate enough to be there when The Chief kicked the bucket, and learned from working people about their aspirations for the future...realized in the Quiet Revolution. And the Bloc continues to represent their interests. And that has to mean Quebec's interests. The "Mulroney's years" gave birth to the party you now disparge, and for damned good reason. Fool them once, shame on you. Fool them twice...well, you know how it goes, Augy.
Mon, 2010-05-31 01:07
#36
The majority of Quebecers don't vote for the BQ, so it's inaccurate to say that they "represent Quebec's interests". Stop repeating BQ talking points.
Augustus lets his prejudices show once again.
He is a bit quick to disregard the fact that the Bloc's policy agenda is largely shaped by the various unanimous pronouncements of the National Assembly, as we've.seen in many recent debates such as the transfer of labour training and placement, the liberal grab of the EI fund, fiscal imbalance, the Kyoto protocol, the Young Offenders Act, the extension of the Charter of the French language to companies operating in Quebec under federal jurisdiction, bilingualism at the Supreme Court, abortion, the federal power grab on securities regulation, etc.
As Quebecers, we may be bitterly divided on the issue of sovereignty, but we do agree on a broad set of issues. The bloquistes bring these issues forward in Ottawa. That's why a majority of Bloc MPs keep being reelected by Quebecers since 1993.
Mon, 2010-05-31 02:38
#37
Yeah, sure you do.
Yes, I do. Do you need me to say it a third time?
Your smearing of the Québec people as racist is pretty regressive
I did no such thing. I stated my opinion that the Conservatives might be able to gain seats in Quebec by attacking immigrants. It's not a blanket indictment of every person in Quebec. It's just my assessment that the province of 'reasonable accommodation' and the niqab ban could be fertile ground for the Conservatives.
it qualifies as hate speech.
I strongly disagree, but I'd be happy to hear a moderator's take on it.
I advise you to put up or shut up.
I have no intention of shutting-up, so please elaborate... what's involved in 'putting- up'?. (Is this how all new Babblers are treated by the old guard? No wonder that from a population of 34-million there seems to be only a few dozen people active on this board.)
In the most friendly way possible, of course.
You're not being friendly at all, so don't even try to feed me that smarmy b.s.
Mon, 2010-05-31 05:35
#38
Here's a rough comparison between FPTP and Fair Voting on Quebec's 2008 federal election results:
FPTP
BQ: 49
LIB: 14
CON: 10
NDP: 1
IND: 1
Fair Voting
BQ: 29 (-10) (-20) oops!
LIB: 18 (+4)
CON: 16 (+6)
NDP: 9 (+8)
GRN: 2 (+2)
IND: 1
Mon, 2010-05-31 05:41
#39
JKR: you might want to edit your post. Your assumption about a fair vote indicates that 10 seats would be lost by the BQ, however you are showing a loss of 20 seats.
Correction initiated.
Augustus, I was commenting on JKR's arithmetic. In his first column he shows the BQ with 49 seats, in his second column, he shows 29 seats with a parenthetical indication that 10 seats have been lost. That is a 20 seat loss by my count (will recheck, but need to take my socks off LOL).
"Oh look, some lovely nits to pick over here!"
[ETA (edited to ask, as opposed to edited to add): are arithmetic flames as lame as spelling flames?]
The BQ has 10 more reasons to not want a change from FPTP.
But fair voting would allow them to maintain a relatively strong position within a multi-party system where no single party can monopolize power.
Mon, 2010-05-31 08:17
#40
Maysie
Freedom 55, making blanket statements and assumptions about the province of Quebec being more racist than other provinces is classic Quebec-bashing and is not allowed on babble. Any speculation about the gains the Cons have made or could make in Quebec needs to be better informed. Otherwise you do need to stop such kinds of speculation.
Unionist, Freedom 55's comments do not qualify as hate speech, so dial it down.
Mon, 2010-05-31 08:23
#41
Unionist, Freedom 55's comments do not qualify as hate speech, so dial it down.
I'll dial it down, Maysie, you're quite right on that point, but we'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes hate speech. And please understand that if anyone here attacks women, or FN, or workers, or Jews, or Muslims, or the people of Québec, etc. - and calling a nation "anti-immigrant" is certainly such an attack - I (and others) will respond every time. These are political issues, not simply one of administering a discussion board.
Mon, 2010-05-31 08:26
#42
As Quebecers, we may be bitterly divided on the issue of sovereignty, but we do agree on a broad set of issues. The bloquistes bring these issues forward in Ottawa. That's why a majority of Bloc MPs keep being reelected by Quebecers since 1993.
You're right, of course, but my take is a bit different. Some people on this board dream that Quebecers will abandon their nationhood and their progressive traditions, and rally to the Conservatives and/or Liberals, if only we tweak the voting procedure. Such "opinions" are not worthy of being debated, because they emanate from those who have nothing but scorn and contempt for the Québec people. What they are doing on a progressive discussio board can only be guessed at.
Mon, 2010-05-31 10:02
#43
I want Quebec (and Canada) to stay progressive but I'm very skeptical. Harper is the most talented politician in Canada, and the media is his ally.
Mon, 2010-05-31 10:15
#44
He is the most unprincipled and manipulative. A winning combination. The media are are publicly traded on the market, operated by business peole interested in lower taxes...which makes them allies.
You're skeptical that the Quebec/Canada relationship, kept progressive by the Bloc (and others, as can be seen by the popularity of Layton) can escape being poisoned by that combo?
Mon, 2010-05-31 10:43
#45
He is the most unprincipled and manipulative. A winning combination. The media are are publicly traded on the market, operated by business peole interested in lower taxes...which makes them allies.
You're skeptical that the Quebec/Canada relationship, kept progressive by the Bloc (and others, as can be seen by the popularity of Layton) can escape being poisoned by that combo?
That and others.
Why is Quebec progressive?
The most common answer that I read in the media is that back in the day the Church took care of people. When the church went away, people were used to the idea that people should be taken care of in whatever circumstance, and thus the government emerged. This is my 2 sentence summary of that idea.
I think a more likely answer is the language barrier. Quebecers have been insulated from the intellectual poison of American propaganda, whereas Canadians have not. Without Quebec, English Canada would have joined the Iraq war, same as Australia and the UK. Quebec's media and intellectual elite are french-speaking, and thus were sheltered by the ideological waves of destruction coming from parts south. However that may be changing. The media is owned by Pierre Karl Peladeau and by the Harper-run Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the first is right-wing and the second will become more and more right-wing with time. Also, I suspect Quebec's intellectual leaders probably read more English texts than they used to. Academia is pretty much an English-language operation.
The other aspect, is that in the 1960s Quebec had an emerging bourgeoisisgrasping for power, whereas now it is a comfortable, established bourgeoisis that is in power. However that aspect is rooted in Marxist theory so I'm not sure how valid it is.
Mon, 2010-05-31 10:53
#46
Maysie
That's a good idea Freedom 55, because "I could see the Conservatives making gains in Quebec by running on an anti-immigrant platform." reads like a blanket statement.
Back to the thread topic, shall we?
Mon, 2010-05-31 10:55
#47
Freedom 55, making blanket statements and assumptions about the province of Quebec being more racist than other provinces is classic Quebec-bashing and is not allowed on babble. Any speculation about the gains the Cons have made or could make in Quebec needs to be better informed. Otherwise you do need to stop such kinds of speculation.
Respectfully, I didn't make any blanket statement about Quebec being more racist than other provinces. In my response to Unionist, I even used that word - blanket - to say that it WASN'T a 'blanket indictment' of Quebec.
This thread is about Quebec (primarily). The claim was made that Quebec was "progressive". Quebec falls well short of any kind of "progressive" that I'm struggling for, so I felt a reality-check was appropriate. Had this thread been about P.E.I., or Ontario, or Saskatchewan, and someone had made a claim about the inherent progressiveness of one of those provinces, I would have had something to say about that too.
I would say that my views on the matter are quite well-informed.
I initially included a disclaimer in which I made it clear that I recognize that racism exists in all provinces, but I edited it out before posting because it sounded overly pedantic, and I assumed my meaning was clear. In the future I'll try to leave less room for interpretation.
Mon, 2010-05-31 13:00
#48
the Bloc's policy agenda is largely shaped by the various unanimous pronouncements of the National Assembly, as we've.seen in many recent debates such as the transfer of labour training and placement, the liberal grab of the EI fund, fiscal imbalance, the Kyoto protocol, the Young Offenders Act, the extension of the Charter of the French language to companies operating in Quebec under federal jurisdiction, bilingualism at the Supreme Court, abortion, the federal power grab on securities regulation, etc.
As Quebecers, we may be bitterly divided on the issue of sovereignty, but we do agree on a broad set of issues. The bloquistes bring these issues forward in Ottawa. That's why a majority of Bloc MPs keep being reelected by Quebecers since 1993.
The NDP has virtually identical policies to Bloc in all these areas - so why not simply vote NDP instead of BQ and have a chance to actually see progressive policies put into effect. The presence of the BQ only makes it more difficult for a progressive coalition to dislodge the Tories.
Mon, 2010-05-31 13:44
#49
remind
In Augustus's defence, he said the comment was silly, not remind.OTOH he is not up on the history of this debate, my memory says that remind is not in favour of PR in any event.
Your memory doesn't serve....sexism has no defense.
Mon, 2010-05-31 13:46
#50
remind
Oh you aren't really calling me "silly" are you?Will give you a chance to remove that comment before i report you, and if you do I will edit my post to reflect your removal of such a incorrect, sexist, demeaning and labelling term.
I said the comment was silly, not you personally.
And there is nothing sexist about it.
Falsely accusing other people of sexism is just as wrong as being sexist.
Yes there is, and I was not falsely accusing.
Seems some men are so ingrained with entrenched sexism cliches, and terms, that they cannot even see it, and those on the right side of things are even worse.
Mon, 2010-05-31 13:48
#51
There's some stereotype I'm not aware of here, or maybe I'm forgetting because it's 3:44 am in this timezone, but how is "silly" associated with women?
I've seen arguments before about the words "hysterical" or :center of attention", I get those, but I think I'm missing some cultural history here.
Is silly a gendered term?