Where does Bloc Quebecois support go if the party eventually dies?

We will see. The BQ is going to stick around because there ARE hard separatists who want that option. But if the BQ didn't exist, I imagine most of the hard separatists will stay home, or maybe even radicalize. Most of the "strategic separatists" or "separtist sympathizers" (that is, people who would consider separation if the French language stays under attack) already abandoned the Bloc last election.

Winston wrote:

In the meantime, can we hold off on this discussion for just a few days? The Bloc has just lost their leader who needs to look after his own health. We should be wishing Mr. Paillé well rather than circling around his party like a flock of starved vultures.

I agree Winston. It is just as heartless as when the media was all over the question of "what happens to the NDP" just after Jack died.

Some of the comments at websites - thinking of the Globe and Mail - were just gruesome, and indeed, I remember similar ones when Jack was ill, and died. I'm no fan of Mr Paillé, in particular over how the Bloc treated Maria Mourani, but I sure as hell don't want him dead or suffering pain and indignity. I utterly loathe Stephen Harper, but I don't wish him dead - just out of office, and facing any relevant charges.

Before the Bloc, hardcore sovereignists voted strategically, stayed home, or supported the Rhinoceros party.

> Where does Bloc Quebecois support go if the party eventually dies?

On Federal Election Day, the core 15% stays home. The rest scatters.

I predicted the demise of the Bloc back in the late 1990s, only to see it rise Lazarus-like with the Liberal Adscam scandal.

So in all due caution, remember there is a lively residual vote here, the NDP 2011 surge was built in part on its collapse, but it has had weak/invisible leader(s) since Gilles Duceppe's defeat.

And note:

Duceppe has been kept busy and visible by the PQ with a mandate (EI and Quebec) and the papers today are full of headlines about him "returning".

He has a natural appeal and charm; call it charisma.  I remember theTV debate in 2008 , I think, when my in-laws in TO thought his party should have candidates down there -- so they could vote for him!

But he has burnt some bridges with main BQ sponsor, the governing PQ, notably by opposing their values charter thing (along with Parizeau, Landry and various other sovereignist eminentos).

So, who knows?

Quebec voters tend to vote tactically, and if the province swings toward Justin, they might want to lay a side bet on a sure value like Duceppe.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

People have predicted the death of parties and movements that have been in far worse straits than this, and have been wrong.

Parties do die. i see the BQ as being like the Creditistre phenomenon of the 60s and 70s...after Real Caouette died and after Andre Fortin died in a car accident, they settled on Fabien Roy, then then went from 11 seats to 5 in 1979, then in 1980 they were wiped off the map once and for all and were never heard from again and they no one missed them.

The only reason the Bloc seemed strong in the 00s was the fact that they filled a vacuum. The federal Liberals were very unpopular under Chretien, then came the sponsorship scandal etc... and the Tories under harper were anathema to most Quebecers for ideological reasons. The NDP was seen as having no chance to win. The BQ kept winning 50odd seats in QC because people had no where else to go. Now that the NDP has 57 "facts on the ground" in Quebec and a popular leader and now that the "ballot question" in 2015 in QC is likely to be getting rid of Harper - its hard to see how the Blod gets back in the game - barring some sort of massive national unity crisis in the next year and a half that creates some sort of wedge between the BQ and the NDP - but I can't even imagine what form that would take.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

The BQ is gone, so there are no more seperatists and Quebec is just another part of the big happy family? I don't think so.

That goes without saying, but keep in mind that there has been an organized separatist movement in Quebec since the early 60s and the PQ has been contesting Quebec provincial elections since 1970...up until 1990 when Bouchard and 11 other QC Tories bolted from Mulroney's caucus to protest the handling of the failing Meech Lake accord and formed the BQ - there was never any separatist option at the federal level. There were tons of separatists in Quebec from the mid-60s onwards but in the 1968, 1972, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1984 and 1988 federal elections there was no separatist party running candidates at the federal level. No one seemed troubled by this. Levesque and the PQ took the wise view that the battle for Quebec was to be fought and won in Quebec City not Ottawa and they felt that running candidates in federal elections would add nothing to their cause. They felt that if anything it would be counter-productive since it would divide sovereignist resources between two levels of government and that it ran the risk of legitimizing the federal House of Commons as a place where Quebec could air its grievances - as opposed to seeing independence as the only alternative. Levesque also argued that there was no point running in federal elections since the goal of the PQ was not to become the government of Canada - and he was right.

In 1972, Levesque urged his followers to abstain from voting and he actually went on a campaign tour urging Quebecers not to vote at all in the election. It was failure as turnout was as high as ever. Then in subsequent elections the PQ discreetly helped whatever party was seen as being the main competition to the Trudeau Liberals - that typically meant quitely backing Creditistes, Tories, sometimes even New Democrats. In 1984 both the Quebec Liberals under Bourassa AND the PQ under Levesque were pretty openly backing Mulroney.

Anyways, my point is that for 25 years hardcore separatist Quebecers had no sovereignist option in federal elections - and they didn't seem to mind. what did they care? They either didn't vote federally or they voted for whatever federalist party they saw as the "lesser of all evils"...what did the BQ actually accomplish for those people in its 20 years as a major force in Ottawa? Its not as if the BQ's presence in Ottawa did anything to advance the cause of Quebec sovereignty one iota. All the BQ ever accomplished was giving well-paying jobs to about 50 sovereignists who sat as BQ MPs plus their office staffs.

No one "needs" the BQ so I expect them to be quietely euthanized one way or the other.

duplicate post

alan smithee wrote:

interesting.

The Bloc was created by disgruntled progressive conservatives.

Like the PQ,the Bloc shouldn't be confused as left wing.

Though not many of them had any roots in the party or any conservative movements

Stockholm wrote:

There were tons of separatists in Quebec from the mid-60s onwards but in the 1968, 1972, 1974, 1979, 1980, 1984 and 1988 federal elections there was no separatist party running candidates at the federal level. No one seemed troubled by this.

One caveat though. And this is from a western and BC perspective. The federal Liberals under Trudeau (Lalonde, Chretien, etc. ) were seen as Quebec-centric out west and seen as doling out major federal largesse to Quebec while ignoring the west. One reason why the Trudeau Libs swept Quebec in 1980 with 74/75 seats.

A major reason why the fed Libs were dead out west throughout the latter 70's and 1980's. The only western options were then seen as the PCs and western populist NDP.

By the 1980's, the Mulroney PCs usurped Trudeau's mantle and were again seen as Quebec-centric out west and seen as doling out major federal largesse to Quebec while ignoring the west. The PCs had also swept Quebec in 1984. No wonder the fed NDP captured the most seats in BC during the 1988 election (dead fed Libs and anti-PC sentiment).

That perception of a Quebec-centric PC led to the rise of Reform ("the west wants in"), which attracted both former PC and populist NDP voters. Same in Quebec with the BQ in 1993 with a nominal new western PC leader (Kim Campbell).

Now we know that the HarperCons are not seen as Quebec-centric. If the fed NDP takes over the mantle of the perception of being Quebec-centric in the west from the fed Libs, PCs and BQ, then Houston we have a problem. I have always said that the Cons will look at the fed NDP's position of "50% + 1" in Quebec as red meat for their localized western election advertising campaign in 2015. Just sayin'.  

Quebec does tend to vote as a "bloc", see Trudeau '68, '74 and '80 majorities, then the Mulroney swing in 1984 and '88, then the whole BQ phenomenon in the 1990s; so yes, this means  politicians give this large swing bloc inordinate attention,

but frankly, the West had huge power in the Mulroney years, from the Deputy PM on down through key Cabinet posts,  and got the free-trade agenda it wanted, then the past 8 years of a thoroughly Calgary-based govt.

-- so if QC again draws the attention of many fed politicans it is not from neglect of the West, they have been running the show for a decade now

The NDP being seen as Quebec-centric is a tiny risk. That perception doesn't line up with the reality. It's not like their policy has suddenly changed to doling out cheques to Quebeckers.

But let's say the Conservatives twist the knife and play up that perception. Worst case, it makes for a Quebec-centric NDP, an Ontario-centric Liberal party, and a Prairie-centric Conservative party. An era of minority governments. Which would still be one of the better scenarios for progressive influence.

I mean that just in terms of seat totals. If the Liberals make a come-back in Ontario, and the NDP hangs on in Quebec, the Conservative MPs will overwhelmingly be from Alberta and Saskatchewan. In the short term, anyway. (BC and the Atlantic will be toss-ups.)

Cross-replying:

Don't write off the Liberal Party. They'll take anyone. No election required, either!

I think that after Mourani has spent a year or so as an "independent federalist" MP, she can easily announce she has bought an NDP membership card and wants to seek the NDP nomination in Ahuntsic. The NDP would roll out the orange carpet and welcome her with open arms and the pluses would FAR outwiegh the minuses

From Mourani's letter:

In 2010, on its 20th anniversary, the Bloc Québécois commissioned a survey from Repère Communication. The key finding was that the people of Quebec and the rest of Canadians were opposed on each one of the five Meech Lake conditions. Consequently, it had nothing really to do with Canadian federalism and the only option for Quebec remained separation.

However, the Repère Communication survey clearly indicated that 73% of Canadians and 78% of Quebecers still believed it was possible to negotiate an agreement satisfactory to Quebec. I, personally, am puzzled by this finding. Why isn’ t the party leadership trying to identify which changes would satisfy both Canadians and Quebecers? I have often heard it said that it isn’t the BQ’s role to improve the federation. While this attitude may have the support of the majority of Bloc Québécois activists, I believe it is one of the main reasons for the BQ’s defeat in  2011

And that's the larger reason the orange wave happened in Quebec. There's a lot of factors that go into it. But the NDP is the only party who presented an optimistic vision (for sovereigntists, federalists, and everyone else) about Quebec's role in the federation in the long run.

http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2013/...

 At the bottom of the article is her letter.

felixr wrote:

Given what I have read about Mourani, I think the party would welcome her with open arms. To the inevitable Liberal cat calls, I say "Jean Lapierre."

To the inevitable Liberal cat calls, I say "Justin Trudeau." We may not need to say it: I'm pretty sure that the Conservatives already have the attack ads ready with Trudeau's flippant remarks.

These opinion polls reflect an opinion that is based in ignorance of the consequences. There is no threshold by which you can deny a majority expressed democratically from prevailing without serious repercussions. There are serious effects of doing so.

There are better solutions than a super majority.

For a vote on independence you can require a mandatory vote. Not unreasonable with a country on the line. You can require that no vote can be held without agreement on the question including a legal mechanism should an agreement be difficult. Already Quebec has a robust legal appeal system for problems with voting. You can require a longer campaign period and you can require greater public information with respect to known consequences. You can reduce paid advertising and increase unpaid coverage. There are reasons to take such a vote seriously. There are ways to make sure it is handled with greater care than an ordinary election. But you don't tell a majority they lost a vote about the direction of their nation (however their nation is defined).

it is also worth mentioning in an election thread like this that whole debate about 50+1 has roughly zero traction in the broad QC electorate;

remember: Lucien Bouchard resigned in exasperation one month after the Clarity Act, saying people "just did not understand" the stakes; in fact, Quebecers are just not excited about it;

Marois tried with the Court challenge recently to rile up the same kind of Meech etc resentment.

-- Results? Deafening silence.

but frankly, have you heard one voter -- ONE? -- mention the Sherbrooke declaration ?

again, leaders often follow; the voters decide what gets debated/noticed, and my impression is Harper resentment and the economy will dominate everywhere...

I take your point but ...

 yes, in casual conversation with regular non-politicized folk and overhearing others on the bus and so on I have certainly heard for example the Quebec charter of values discussed (!), and Montreal infrastructure issues bemoaned and the postal delivery shutdown etc. ... not ever 50+1

NDP can stick with 50+1, fine, my argument is no one will really notice or comment, and even Lucien Himself could not get a rise out of the issue and slammed the door as a result