[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

Man, we vote for a federalist party & yet, we're still going about independance. Urg.

The fact that NDP is federalist is irrelevant. We voted more to get the BQ out of their pension seats because they dared bringing back the national question once too much when it wasn't warranted.

They were behaving like our vote was acquired just because we're Quebeckers, and we were irked by it.

Yes.

[Malthus]

Would these figures, by any chance, be comming from the same pollsters that covered this last election - none of whom foresaw a majority Conservative government, and none of whom foresaw the Bloc being reduced to a rump?

Not to say I think this latest result means the "death of seperatism" - it doesn't. It does, however, mean more than nothing.

The results are constant, give or take 1-2%, year after year, poll after poll.

It is still dangerous to thus assume that the poll results reflect what would happen if an actual referendum were held.

The election polling was undertaken by multiple polling agencies of varying agendas. They were still wrong, both individually and collectively.

Of course this can go both ways: a referendum, with a charismatic spokesperson and under the right circumstances (such as a perceived attempt by the feds to screw Quebec), could sweep the province and gather up support.

However, judging by other factors - the overall tiredness and lack of energy in seperatism, the fact that repeating the mantra of sepertism was so signally *not* a success in this election - it seems that the reverse is more likely. Holding a referendum "right here and now" would not be a good idea for seperatists.

Consider what happened to the Liberals, who also relied on "rock solid" basic supporters as revealed by polls to an absurd degree - in my riding, so safely Liberal by every polling measure they parachuted in Iggy. That worked the first time, but not now ...

[Oexmelin]

How can that be read as anything other than an endorsement of the notion that a non-citizen of Quebec cannot have a legitimate opinion?

Ok. Fair enough. Read literally, it seems I endorse that notion. But it seemed to me that if one was reading the exchange, my point was not that no one outside Quebec can have a legitimate opinion, but rather that people outside Quebec usually see the issue from an outside, skewed perspective that might not accurately reflect the dynamics of Quebec's political life, especially on such an issue as separatism, and its life (or death).

But much more importantly, I would have hoped that after ten fucking years of arguing on Languish, one might give me a tiny little bit of benefit of a doubt when arguing with someone, about the value I ascribe to the opinions, ideas, and arguments of others.

For some strange reason, you switch to this tone of the debate each time we discuss this issue, something which never really appears whenever I am discussing with CC or BB.

[Grallon]

How can that be read as anything other than an endorsement of the notion that a non-citizen of Quebec cannot have a legitimate opinion?

Ok. Fair enough. Read literally, it seems I endorse that notion. But it seemed to me that if one was reading the exchange, my point was not that no one outside Quebec can have a legitimate opinion, but rather that people outside Quebec usually see the issue from an outside, skewed perspective that might not accurately reflect the dynamics of Quebec's political life, especially on such an issue as separatism, and its life (or death).

But much more importantly, I would have hoped that after ten fucking years of arguing on Languish, one might give me a tiny little bit of benefit of a doubt when arguing with someone, about the value I ascribe to the opinions, ideas, and arguments of others.

For some strange reason, you switch to this tone of the debate each time we discuss this issue, something which never really appears whenever I am discussing with CC or BB.

Yes it's always the same thing every single time.  It's the blind spot I spoke of earlier. *shrug*

-----

My final take is that this election is a clear message to the independentists: "Do not take us for granted and stop trying to force the issue - we'll come to it in our own time." (Note to Malthus - delaying something doesn't mean abandoning that thing...)  The PQ and its allies should be *very mindful* to take heed of that message and reformulate their strategy accordingly.

Personally I think we've been collectively traumatized by the results of the last referendum and have refused to face the issue since.  In that light removing the pseudo 'insurance policy' that was the Bloc may signify Quebecers are now ready to move - whether its towards separation or towards Canada remains to be seen.  I think the next few years will be 'déterminantes'. 

Incidentally, yesterday I had a 50 something colleague, a woman, told me that this was the last chance; that she'd always been a federalist and always voted against the Bloc until now.  But that if Quebec get screwed in any way by either Harper or the NDP she'll be ready to vote for separation.  For some reason I found this significant.   




G.

[Drakken]

Incidentally, yesterday I had a 50 something colleague, a woman, told me that this was the last chance; that she'd always been a federalist and always voted against the Bloc until now.  But that if Quebec get screwed in any way by either Harper or the NDP she'll be ready to vote for separation.  For some reason I found this significant.   

Oddly, I agree with the woman and I am as staunch a Loyalist as you can get. If Harper fucks it up and the NDP drops the ball om us, I might reconsider my positions. Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

[Valmy]

Oddly, I agree with the woman and I am as staunch a Loyalist as you can get. If Harper fucks it up and the NDP drops the ball om us, I might reconsider my positions. Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

What sorts of nefarious things would Harper have to do to fuck things up?

Again this seems odd to me because Languish gave me the impression that the Conservatives were in favor of stronger Provincial powers and a weaker Fed.  I would think Quebec would be in favor of that but in fact they seem to hate the Conservatives even more than the Liberals.  Is it just because most Quebeckers are a bunch of pinko socialists or is it because the Conservatives are in fact a strong central government party?

[Barrister]

Oddly, I agree with the woman and I am as staunch a Loyalist as you can get. If Harper fucks it up and the NDP drops the ball om us, I might reconsider my positions. Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

What sorts of nefarious things would Harper have to do to fuck things up?

Again this seems odd to me because Languish gave me the impression that the Conservatives were in favor of stronger Provincial powers and a weaker Fed.  I would think Quebec would be in favor of that but in fact they seem to hate the Conservatives even more than the Liberals.  Is it just because most Quebeckers are a bunch of pinko socialists or is it because the Conservatives are in fact a strong central government party?

Conservatives are more supportive of stronger provincial powers than the Liberals are.

However, sovreignists tend to support an absolutely minimalist federal government, which is not something the Conservatives are in favour of.  A certain element of Quebecers are guaranteed to be disappointed in the federal government because they don't in fact want there to be a federal government, either at all, or in any meaningful sense.

[Maximus]

What sorts of nefarious things would Harper have to do to fuck things up?

Again this seems odd to me because Languish gave me the impression that the Conservatives were in favor of stronger Provincial powers and a weaker Fed.  I would think Quebec would be in favor of that but in fact they seem to hate the Conservatives even more than the Liberals.  Is it just because most Quebeckers are a bunch of pinko socialists or is it because the Conservatives are in fact a strong central government party?

It's because of the hidden agenda. Everyone knows the Conservatives have a hidden agenda. They just don't know what that agenda is, other than to screw over <insert favorite cause here>.

[Oexmelin]

Again this seems odd to me because Languish gave me the impression that the Conservatives were in favor of stronger Provincial powers and a weaker Fed.  I would think Quebec would be in favor of that but in fact they seem to hate the Conservatives even more than the Liberals.  Is it just because most Quebeckers are a bunch of pinko socialists or is it because the Conservatives are in fact a strong central government party?

Perhaps a little bit of A and a little bit of B. Some of the more "social conservative" moves - even if limited - played badly in Quebec. The whole discourse on "Law and Order" (federal responsibilities) doesn't really win votes here, except when it comes to pedophilia. In the end, because the government ended up doing so little, it was these little impressions that mattered.

The Cons also figured out that it isn't always easy to satisfy Quebeckers (rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter), without angering the Rest of Canada. The simple recognition that Quebec is a nation (without any sort of concrete powers, transformations, etc.) was tough to sell. The whole discourse of "discussing with separatists is bad" (whenever there was talk of an opposition coalition) didn't play well either, simply because, in their daily lives, Quebeckers have to talk, deal with, and live with, separatists, and it isn't considered traitorous...

And then, the Cons saw that they could get more support by handing out pork outside of Quebec, even if it became unpopular in Quebec. The past campaign, they decided to ignore Quebec altogether, only trying to save the few ridings they held - gambling on the fact that they could win a majority without Quebec, and they won.

[Oexmelin]

However, sovreignists tend to support an absolutely minimalist federal government, which is not something the Conservatives are in favour of.  A certain element of Quebecers are guaranteed to be disappointed in the federal government because they don't in fact want there to be a federal government, either at all, or in any meaningful sense.

Yes, I think it is about right, coupled with what I think is a fundamental misunderstanding about what the federal government *is* and represents outside of Quebec. It also means that federal issues that get perhaps only little attention elsewhere in Canada (international relations and aid, culture, Radio-Canada/CBC) get a bit more here, and the Conservatives' position on those issues is bound to create more resentment or opposition.

[Valmy]

Quebec has strong opinions on foreign relations as well eh?

Thanks that clears things up a bit.

[Grey Fox]

Quebec has strong opinions on foreign relations as well eh?

Thanks that clears things up a bit.

We've got a version of most of the Federal gov departments. Tax bureau, Immigration bureau, etc.

[katmai]

I fully support Quebec independence on grounds that Mexico would move up and not be the shittiest country in North America.

[crazy canuck]

On the MP pension thing, they need to serve for 6 years in order for their pension to vest.  So whoever said two terms is basically correct if those two terms add up to at least 6 years.  However, in the last 5 years there are been as many "terms" more or less so anyone serving only two terms during that period of time would not qualify.

[Grey Fox]

On the MP pension thing, they need to serve for 6 years in order for their pension to vest.  So whoever said two terms is basically correct if those two terms add up to at least 6 years.  However, in the last 5 years there are been as many "terms" more or less so anyone serving only two terms during that period of time would not qualify.

Was me. I also learned that it's pro-rated. Only serving 6 years gets you a pension of 27k/year. Duceppe, who serve for 20 years, will get 128k/year.