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

I imagine it'll be posted here eventually:

http://www.cbc.ca/radionoonmontreal/

I agree : provincial issue.

Please let the discerning QC electorate deal with this, just as they did with Bill 14, RIP, for those whose memories cast back to March 2013.

Mulcair's positions are worth noting, but he has no vote as a member of the National Assembly any more.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Hmm. Is there a reason why he feels he needs to lard it on so much?

Honest question. I mean, perhaps there is, but as was mentioned above, it could also be seen as exploiting others' misfortune. 

You mean you think he's laying it on thick in attacking the BQ and Marois? let me remind you that this is an interview Mulcair is giving to an ENGLISH CBC station in Montreal. The vast majority of people who listen to English radio in Montreal hate the BQ, the PQ and anything to do with the so-called charter of Quebec values - so Mulcair is saying exactly what NDP potential voters in anglo- and allophone Quebec want to hear.

sorry, Stockholm, keep the word hate out of this ; there is a vigorous debate here, as there was over the now defunct Bill 14

no paternalism, please, the locals are quite capable of handling their political/social issues

but from the Globe and Mail editorial page down to NDP HQ there, everyone in ON feels their insights are crucial to Quebec's internal debate; not sure of that, not at all

as for Herouxville, that is the cliché yokel town but the Globe shrewdly sent its reporter there and found the locals were disengaged, not a big issue there;

in truth, the key demographic for Marois' pitch is the Montreal periphery regions and 50-plus francophone women who feel religion has to be kept from dominating their social lives

Stockholm wrote:

I'm an anglo-Quebecer so I have as much right to express an opinion as anyone.

Indeed. It's rather the quality of the opinion which is being questioned here. Why not try to be among the more enlightened Anglo-Quebecers? And perhaps, don't attribute your own "hatred" to everyone else who actually makes their homes here. We're not like that.

Quote:

Perhaps the word "hate" is harsh but I'm trying to think of a more appropriate word to describe the extreme dislike that the vast majority of non-francophones have for the PQ/BQ - especailly in its new xenophobic Front Nationale-style incarnation under Pauline Marois.

You know, before sending an invading liberation force to [s]Normandy[/s] Notre-Dame-de-Grâce to free us from [s]Vichy and the Nazis[/s] the "Front National" [er, no "e" at the end of National, please], maybe divert a few battalions to the state-sanctioned "public" schools in your homeland, you know, the ones run by [s]child-molesting women-hating gay-bashing science-shunning fascist collaborators[/s] - er, the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ and God Almighty. When you've captured those ramparts, you can head here, reclaim your Québec resident status, and do a little listening.

Nonsense.

Stockholm is quite welcome to express his opinions here; I like and endorse the strongly reasoned ones, but criticize the weakly supported ones.

Period.

(PS I too disdain Mme Marois, but her project has to be seen in context.)

that is a key insight: the Bloc was essentially Bleu, which is a historic adversary of the Rouges/Liberals in Quebec

well, read Finkielkraut (and his six or so author cohort currently dominating French public discourse);

 they are talking about a widespread uneasiness among largely working class voters about immigration and integration: so either address those anxieties rationally and persuasively, taking the issue out the hands of demagogues, or do what you seem to be recommending and  pretend that sentiment does not exist;

 that leads to Marois addressing integration issues in her own wrongheaded fashion

The "context" is that the "national question" used to be a higher priority for Quebec, in the 90s. The two main provincial parties weren't organized from "left" vs "right". They were organized along the question of Federalist/Sovereigntist, with "left" and "right" politicians in both the Parti Quebecois and the Liberal Party. Now the national question is a lower priority, and polls show support for sovereignty is dropping, especially among young people. And that explains the rise of the ADQ/CAQ and QS. The question is shifting from "should the federal government have jurisdiction" to "what kind of government do we want, provincially and federally?" The shifting party lines reflect that underlying change in desire.

And Mourani's statement re-evaluating sovereignty is also a reflection of that change. The sovereigntist cause really was a solution in search of a problem. Sovereignty doesn't solve the question of "what kind of government do we want". And, if anything, focusing on sovereignty (or not-sovereignty) postpones the important work of deciding how Quebeckers should live. At the provincial level, it means going back and forth between two mushy parties that are focused on the wrong things. And at a federal level, it's often meant that Quebec is inherently excluded from governing. When Mourani asks "Why isn’t the party leadership trying to identify which changes would satisfy both Canadians and Quebecers?", she recognizes the need for a change in dialog. The dialog has already changed.

I admire the NDP's principle on this. It's so tempting to be expedient and just take whoever will join the party. But when people were voting for Mourani, they were voting for a Bloc Quebecois platform, including a goal of sovereignty. The idea that she would take the votes of her constituents and then work towards NDP policies, including federalism, would be a slap in the face of the people who elected her.

The riding was hotly contested, and decided within a few percentage points. Whichever party she joins, she will probably be re-elected under their banner. But the principle that she should run again is important. The voters have to decide, not the individual MP.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The idea that she would take the votes of her constituents and then work towards NDP policies, including federalism, would be a slap in the face of the people who elected her.

So - sorry to be such a pest - but explain to me why (under the NDP's policy, which you appear to support) she gets to declare publicly "I'm now a federalist", quit the party which endorsed her candidacy, and she can continue to sit in the House, having been elected on a clearly independentist platform? You think her voters are ok with that, as long as she doesn't actually join a federalist party?

What if she had done this deed in June 2011? Another 4 years as an MP?

The NDP needs to rethink its policy.

The NDP can only control who is does or does not allow to sit in the NDP caucus. The NDP has no control over what happens when someone goes from BQ to Independent. It has said that if she wants to join the NDP she will have to seek a nomination in 2015 and get elected as a NDP candidate first.

Unionist wrote:

So - sorry to be such a pest - but explain to me why (under the NDP's policy, which you appear to support) she gets to declare publicly "I'm now a federalist", quit the party which endorsed her candidacy, and she can continue to sit in the House, having been elected on a clearly independentist platform? You think her voters are ok with that, as long as she doesn't actually join a federalist party?

What if she had done this deed in June 2011? Another 4 years as an MP?

The NDP needs to rethink its policy.

I can assure you NO ONE in the NDP takes its support in Quebec for granted. Its a reality though that about 90% of political news coverage in Quebec focuses on provincial politics and less than 10% of it deals with federal politics - so parties that only exist at the federal level such as the NDP and the Conservatives get eclipsed for that reason. I watch RDI occasionally and i have seen Mulcair being interviewed several times....of course the ratings for all news networks like RDI and CBC Newsworld are so ridiculously low and that you would have to go on a scavenger hunt to find anyone who was not a political staffer or junkie who ever watches that stuff.

Matthieu wrote:

Your party should really work on its communication and stop taking Québec for granted. 

I agree that the NDP needs to work on its communication strategy. Fact is, the NDP has weak ties to Quebec media, due to their lack of presence in provincial politics. (Which is to say nothing of the NDP's challenges with media in the rest of the country.) 

But challenges to communication strategy are VERY different from taking voters for granted. In fact, Quebec issues come up almost every time the NDP appears in the media, and I've never heard a Federal MP more well-versed and considerate to Quebec interests than Thomas Mulcar.

Unionist wrote:

So - sorry to be such a pest - but explain to me why (under the NDP's policy, which you appear to support) she gets to declare publicly "I'm now a federalist", quit the party which endorsed her candidacy, and she can continue to sit in the House, having been elected on a clearly independentist platform? You think her voters are ok with that, as long as she doesn't actually join a federalist party?

What was written on the ballot that voters received?

wage zombie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So - sorry to be such a pest - but explain to me why (under the NDP's policy, which you appear to support) she gets to declare publicly "I'm now a federalist", quit the party which endorsed her candidacy, and she can continue to sit in the House, having been elected on a clearly independentist platform? You think her voters are ok with that, as long as she doesn't actually join a federalist party?

What was written on the ballot that voters received?

What do you think? Maria Mourani, Bloc Québécois. Was that a serious question?

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me this is odd grounds for invalidating an election. Again, I know from a party's territorial perspective it might seem equivalent to fraud or theft.

Though it is worth pointing out the recent case in which actual fraud wasn't enough to do it.

But people cast their votes for all sorts of reasons.To say that the party can claim that vote, and that there is any misrepresentation at all is speculation.

Might there be some grounds for challenging an automatic process like this? Especially when (and I agree with Unionist here) being turfed from the party amounts to the same thing. Seems to me there is a lot of potential for a vindictive party to use a law like this as a weapon.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

That's a good point too, 6079_Smith_W. It's one thing for an MP to go independent. It's another thing for a party to force an MP out. If they could then say "hey, now you have to resign your seat and force a new election", that would give a LOT of power to the party.

So, under the NDP's policy, they can kick you out - and you can sit there, as long as you don't join another party, in which case you're out.

The whole policy, of automatically vacating your seat, is stupid.

Right of recall - you said it - that's the proper democratic remedy. Because under some circumstances, when a party betrays its supporters in a flagrant way, elected MPs will want to leave - with the full support of their constituents. Why should there be a byelection? A right to recall is sufficient to protect against abuse.

Interesting, though, isn't it... the NDP policy punishes floor-crossing by individuals. It has nothing to say about parties which "cross the floor" - unannounced accords, coalitions, or just plain betrayal.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

That's a good point too, 6079_Smith_W. It's one thing for an MP to go independent. It's another thing for a party to force an MP out.

But it's not.... at least if we want to keep emotions and territorialism out of this. Technically it amounts to the same thing, whether a person jumps or is pushed.

That's why I question the party's motive here. Why focus on one kind of change? And why make it an automatic process when it really should be in the hands of the constituents to call for a re-election if they want to? After all, this whole principled stand is presumably for our benefit.

But again, it begs the question of what the problem is. And if that problem that the MP no longer represents the party the people presumably voted for, then it is the same if s/he is kicked out.

Personally, I think if a party and a candidate and a constituency are divided on issues that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, wiht mechanisms in place to deal with it if it is justified.

That the main issue is betrayal seems a pretty small motive for overturning an election and making a whole bunch of people go to a lot of time and expense to fight it all over again. It's a waste, really.

Great column by Chantal Hebert

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/12/20/pq_has_lost_the_high_groun...

For decades the PQ had succeeded in commanding what most francophone Quebecers construed as the political high ground in the province’s identity debate. But its secularism charter has opened a breach in its walls of moral superiority and so far it is not federalists who are rushing in but sovereigntists who are running out. And they are not all leaving in the dead of the night.

Its not about emotionalism or territrorialism - its about respect for democracy and for the voters. When I voted in the 2011 federal election i put my "X" in front of "Olivia Chow - New Democratic Party of Canada". I did not put my "x" in front of "Olivia Chow - Independent: take your chances on how she decides to align herself". If she suddenly joined the Conservative Party after all the time and money people have volunteered to get her elected AS A NEW DEMOCRAT - i and many others would feel violated - and we would not want to have to wait years until the next election to render a verdict.

As long as the name of the party appears on the ballot - we are all voting for the party just as much as we are voting for the individual.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

It would be entirely beneficial to the NDP's "territory" to take defectors from other parties, including Mourani. But they're not doing it.

Many people have explained the principled democratic reason why they aren't, with the height of reason.

You've chosen to ignore that explanation. So there's not much else to say.

I assume this is a response to me.

Look.can we stow the assumption of absolute rightness?  People have explained their positions. I haven't ignored them; I disagree with them, and my position is based on a concern for respecting election results as well.

I agree there should be a mechanism like this; I simply think it should be in the hands of the people who actually elected the member, to use IF they wish. Turning leaving caucus into a poison pill is something else entirely, and serves the party far more than it does any voters.

Aside from the fact that elections aren't cheap or easy, and should not be entered into unnecessarily, I question whether a proposal like this is even legal.

It's also not as if any party is haemorrhaging from members who leave or are driven out. And while there have been some cases that seem opportunistic, I'd say most have actual reasons behind the departures. trying to legislate an end to that is rather ignoring the root problems, no?

@ socialdemocraticmiddle

I haven't made one personal attack. I haven't ridiculed anyone's position, and contrary to your claim that I am ignoring what people are saying, I am reading quite clearly and challenging on points where I disagree.

So I'd appreciate it if you stop right now with the accusations and with the assumption that your position is the only valid one in the room.

We're really going around in circles here, but if I can repeat a point yet again, I have to question how you think floor crossing is any different. Again, I am no lawyer, but I don't think the law works that way. Malicious intent can be an aggravating factor, but it isn't in itself the breach of the law.

If I were to forget to pay my taxes or run through a red light the breach would be no different than if I had been deliberately fraudulent or intented to blow through the intersection. I'd still have to pay back the money, perhaps with a fine, and I'd still get that ticket.

Same thing here. If the concern is that a member no longer represents the party s/he was elected to represent (and I have some problems with that assumption, since parties are a largely informal part of our political process) then it IS no different if that person jumps, was pushed, or goes to another party. A voter who was principled enough could complain that the member no longer represents the party s/he voted for, and that voter would be absolutely right.

And I'd venture to say that in any given situation there could be a wide range of opinion among constituents. So again, I have serious questions and concerns about a mechanism that is automatic, narrowly focused, and seems to serve the party far more than the people who actually chose the person to represent them.

And I'll repeat again that even fraud isn't big enough to automatically overturn the decision of the electorate.

If they're serious and so principled, let them put that automatic trigger on their own campaign promises and put their government on the line first, then they can think about using it as a whip to keep their members in line.