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

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Again, I am no lawyer, but I don't think the law works that way.

Ae you saying the problem with the NDP floor crossing policy is that it would be illegal?

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

So the NDP won't stop people from going independent. But they will make it illegal to cross the floor to another party without an election. For all MPs of all parties in all circumstances.

Not quite, sdm. The NDP's bill would also stop elected independents from joining a registered party. Just want to make sure everyone sees the NDP's full policy in all its spendour.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Represent the *platform you were elected to represent. That's the reason I'm offering. If you switch parties, you're switching platforms. If you go independent, you're rejecting one part of a platform. There's a difference. Don't obscure it. It's important.

Sorry, I'm not following you at all. Why would I, elected as an independent, be thrown out of Parliament if I joined one of the parties after a couple of years? That's what the NDP's draft legislation says. What "platform" is being switched? Maybe I was elected because I'm a very popular local personality who has done much good for the community. I made no promises (because as an independent, there was no danger I'd form the government!), except to exercise my utmost personal integrity at all times and do my best to represent my constituents.

So one more time - why does the NDP says that a person [b]elected as an independent[/b] has to remain as an independent, or else vacate her seat?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Beyond people here, I do question the NDP's motives in holding this policy and I explained why I think it is emotional and territorial. All of that is fair comment.

If that's fair comment, then you can't turn around and accuse ME of believing there's only one principled and reasonable position. That would be hypocritical.

Disagree without being disagreeable. That's all.

The idea of forbidding floor crossing by legislation seems to me to be incompatible with the nature of the Westminster system. It's not like there's any way of legally requiring parties to implement their platforms (or not to change them mid-stream), and a floor-crosser doesn't automatically repudiate everything she believes. Floor crossing is more often down to petty squabbles or personal gain (David Emerson, Belinda Stronach) than a sudden conversion of ideologies.

But say such a thing were to be implemented, not giving party leadership the ability to force a by-election, but merely forbidding MPs from joining another caucus, so they'd have to sit as independents until reelected under another banner. They could still sit as "Independent Liberals" or whatever else until the next election. They could still sit in on caucus meetings, attend party functions, and endorse the party in public speeches.

Hell, it wouldn't even have stopped Emerson from sitting in Cabinet (there's no rule that says cabinet ministers must be from the PM's party). I get that this is a good issue for the NDP to chest-thump on, but in the Westminster system, the proper remedies for floor-crossing are electoral ones.

Of course, if such a bill were in effect, it would've prevented the Bloc from acting as a recognized party between 1990 and 1993, which may be on the minds of some of those considering this from either side.

I don't get the reason why an independent cannot decide to join a party. I think that is part of what independent should mean. Maybe there is an oversight or I just am mising some reason for it.

I think there are two trains of thought here: one is what should be the rules or the law. I am fine with not allowing a person elected under one banner to join a competing party- sitting as independent ok (and necessary to provide the ability to act on conscience) and someone who is elected as indpependent should be able to join a party if they want.

The second train of thought was where I was when I said I don't think that it is good politics to take a person elected for one party as a candidate in the very next election. I while technically it might be fine to be lega; I thinkfor the most part you want a candidate who has not just joined your party after fighting against it in the last election. I think the NDP can find better candidates than that.

The other question of whether a party should be able to offer cabinet positions to people from opposing parties is a difficult one. Sitting in a cabinet is crossing the floor and there is an inducement in salary even to do so. People in the riding voted against that party the person is now in cabinet with.Cabinet members have no independence to speak of and can hardly maintain their party loyalty if they are of a different party.

On the other hand I see the point about having representation from a needed area, bringing in a person of talent. My preference would be to see this as a form of coalition and require the consent of the party the person is from. Naturally few parties would consent just to have one person work in cabinet. However if this consent is there and the person is allowed to remain representing the other party albeit in government including expressing a minority opinion it might be reasonable. I just se few takers under those terms.

.

Agreed. To the original point of this thread... the Bloc is unlikely to go away, just because there ARE a significant number of people who say "it's the Bloc or nothing". Those who aren't fond of the Bloc can wish them into irrelevance, but you can't wish them away completely.

Except when that foreign government taxes you, and doles it out as they see fit, provides services in your province, has jurisdiction within it, and passes laws that affect it, and takes political stands and actions on the issue of sovereignty.

Not something that would interest everyone, but I can see why many people, sovereigntist or not, would want some input for as long as the relationship is there.

Yeah. Sounds kind of like voting NDP federally, no?

Federal NDP has a lot to brag about, especially (and not exclusively) in minority government situations. Start with our health care system.

And the BQ never made the difference on specific issues?

Like the vote to kill C-391, which kept the firearms registry in place.

Or as a silent partner (because to do otherwise would set anti-sovereigntists spinning) supporting the coalition in 2008.

Or more importantly, having input on numerous issues from a perspective that has the Quebec nation's distinct interests. Seems to me a reason the party came into being was because some felt they could no longer trust that could happen through Canadian parties.

Sorry, but that whole argument about a party accomplishing nothing is obviously a biased argument. And the fact that 30% of voters see no other voice for them kind of makes a mockery of it.

And really, framing this falsely as "parties doing nothing" is yet another part of this running argument that sets parties as the most important body in our democracy, above the elected members, and the will of the voters.

What is important is not whether a party holds a plurality, or ever have a chance of forming government but whether it represents the people who voted for it. Though for a party which accomplished nothing it's surprising how many people paid a lot of attention to it, I suspect for some what bugged them most about the BQ is that is foiled their chance at having a tidy majority.

To get back to my first comment here, the whole question is a silly one, because if some think that if the BQ falls apart it means the end of the issues it raised they should think again. The party sprang virtually out of nowhere once, and it can do it again if people feel the need.

I'd also add that the Bloc supported Nathan Cullen's climate change bill, C-311.

Individual MPs may have done good work but in every case the BQ as a whole was at most voting exactly the same way as a bunch of NDP or even Liberal MPs would have voted.

The only thing the BQ ever really accomplished was to help Harper stay in power because as long as 50 Quebec seats were off the table it meant that a non-Conservative government was virtually impossible.

Anyways the good news is that the BQ is virtually dead and all we need to do in 2015 is administer the last rites to what was ultimately a failed experiment

The best thing the Bloc ever did was deprive subsequent Liberal and Conservative governments of easy majorities. And the people who elected the Bloc wanted it that way. It's actually an example of Democracy working properly (if you ignore the problems with FPTP).

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The best thing the Bloc ever did was deprive subsequent Liberal and Conservative governments of easy majorities. And the people who elected the Bloc wanted it that way. It's actually an example of Democracy working properly (if you ignore the problems with FPTP).

Remind me when they did that? The Liberal had a majority for 11 years despite the Bloc sweeping Quebec. I suppose it's conceivable to argue that the Bloc's presence might have helped prevent a Liberal majority in 2004 but then after that they I'd nothing to stop the Tories from having a majority since there was never any way that Quebec was going to vote massively for Harper if the bloc didn't exist. There is a reason the Bloc got flushed down the toilet in 2011 and that was that Quebecers woke up to the fact that they were a wasted voted that did nothing but scream and yell a lot to no end

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

There is a reason the Bloc got flushed down the toilet in 2011 and that was that Quebecers woke up to the fact that they were a wasted voted that did nothing but scream and yell a lot to no end

Thank goodness you didn't say Linda McQuaig got "flushed down the toilet". It shows your capacity for rage and provocation are somewhat circumscribed.

Quebecers will always surprise you - not because you don't understand them (which of course you don't) - but because they don't follow your egregiously partisan norms. They have open minds, with all the potential rewards and risks that that entails.

 

Now I don't know if Stockholm is correct ( I don't have your preternatural gift for knowing the viewpoints of all Quebecers.), but I do know that his opinion is shared by others.  Your nasty  and demeaning dismissal of his opinion doesn't change that reality.

As for your belief in the value of an "open mind" , it is interesting to see you are not burdened by an overly developed sense of irony.

I find the argument that the BQ is a waste is partisan blather. They have a prime purpose in that they represent a particular point of view and constituency that remains present and significant. No other party at the federal level shares their perspective. I don't agree with the point of view of the BQ but I do entirely accept the value in representation of all points of view to a peaceful place of debate. As for accomplishments they have voted on many proposals and made a difference, representing very well those who elected them on many. Sure I am a supporter of another party but surely we can understand democratic function, participation and representation. Quite often the BQ and the NDP have voted together as well. I may prefer that Quebec choose the NDP but I won't argue that there was useless representation from the BQ members as that is simply not the case. Presumptions about who represents the voters in future are a bit arrogant. You earn that vote each time and the BQ will make their case as will the NDP.

I could make that same argument about people who voted for other parties I didn't support, or who presumably split votes, or people who didn't vote at all. None of it would be true, or any of my business.

And it especially would not be true as part of a claim that Quebec somehow owes the rest of Canada something because some of us are so fucking stupid that we keep voting for Harper in the first place. Shouldn't those who actually cast votes for him be a slightly higher concern than those in Quebec, who have done the best job of turning their backs on him?

It seems to me that trying to goad them into acting in the interests of the rest of Canada is a bit late and a bit presumptious, since the catalyst for the Bloc in the first place was when some who tried that course realized their vision didn't get the same consideration from the rest of Canada at all.

I know things aren't quite the same right now as they were in 1995, but I wouldn't push it.

Stockholm wrote:

Parties don't HAVE to exist as the death of the union nationale and of social credit taught us.

Very true.

Like the Progressive Conservative party.

Or the CCF.

Or the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party_of_Quebec]Québec NDP[/url].

Here today, gone tomorrow.

Watch out!

What's up, Stockholm? You insult people's choices and in the same breath chide them for not giving you a leg up.

How many people do you honestly think you're going to win over with this team sports harangue? If I lived there I'd be asking what the better bet is: helping Canadians who don't seem so interested in helping themselves and hoping that my concerns get remembered, or putting my energies into taking care of my own house.

One thing is for sure - if I were to make the same pitch I'd focus less on the ridicule and welfare of the party, and more on common issues of concern, and leave it to the rest of the people of your nation to figure out what they think the best vehicle is.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am not knocking on doors in Repentigny telling former BQ voters that they were idiots to have ever supported such a useless party. I am expressing my opinion as to why the BQ is now obsolete in an English language website/newsgroup called "babble" that is read by at most 20 people in all of Canada - likely NONE of whom are francophone Quebecers who are swing voters.

cco wrote:

If every Bloc seat had gone Liberal in 2008, Harper would still have had a plurality, and the coalition would have worked out the same as before, with the Liberals backing down.

Well that's debatable. Not to say all would have been roses and daisies but let's think this through. If every Bloc seat had somehow gone Liberal in 2008 (notwithstanding Sponsorgate), they'd have won 126 seats, up from 95. This would have been seen as a major improvement for the party. Surely such a Quebec sweep would have secured enough party confidence in Stéphane Dion to keep him on as leader.

Hence Harper would have gone into the Throne Speech with a permanent non-interim opposition leader. At this point the opposition would have been in a position of considerable leverage because they could have voted down the Throne Speech, and approached the GG to govern. (Recall in reality the Liberals passed the Throne Speech, vulnerable and scared with an interim leader, and did not protest until the fiscal update.) Dion was always open to working with Layton. Iggy is the one who scrapped it.

The whole anti-coalition backlash relied heavily on the involvement of the Bloc. Liberals were scared that governing with Bloc support would alienate the ROC irreparably, whereas leaning on the NDP has tended to steal NDP support (except 2006). It was also controversial because the Liberals lost seats and then proposed to govern again anyway, and because they didn't even have a leader. None of these would have been at issue in this alternate universe. A Liberal-NDP majority accord may have still resulted in backlash but most Canadians would have seen it as more democratically legitimate.

To be fair, however, if the Liberals had won every Bloc seat in 2008 it would have been because they did something to deserve it, because of Dion's incredible charisma and campaigning skills, his insight into how to craft a platform that inspires people to turn out and vote for it, his incredible ability to turn around a scandal 180° a short few years after it came to light. Wait, I think I see why that didn't happen :)

6079_Smith_W wrote:

. . . as a silent partner (because to do otherwise would set anti-sovereigntists spinning) supporting the coalition in 2008.

Though for a party which accomplished nothing it's surprising how many people paid a lot of attention to it, I suspect for some what bugged them most about the BQ is that it foiled their chance at having a tidy majority.

But Duceppe was right . . .  not being "a silent partner" was what killed the 2008 coalition, when English Canada noticed their all-too-visible partnership. They had accomplished worse than nothing  . . . they had given Ignatieff the excuse he wanted to back away from the coalition, which had been very popular in Quebec. So in 2011 when Jack Layton said they only knew how to play defence but couldn't score goals, he was being polite: in fact in 2008 the Bloc had earned an assist when Harper's prorogation scored the game-winner. Ever since then, wasn't the Bloc's raison d'etre on very thin ice, awaiting the population noticing that (to change the metaphor) the road-runner had run off the cliff?

I think the Bloc will be wiped out in 2015, because it is no help in ridding Quebec of Harper.