[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[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.

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.

Yes it is pro-rated.  But for that 18 year old, if by some miracle he wins another election and makes it to 6 years of service, will get a pretty nice subsidy for the rest of his life.

[Grey Fox]

Oh yeah. I should have volunteered to be a lamppost. Damn it.

[Valmy]

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.

I wish I was Duceppe.

[crazy canuck]

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.

I wish I was Duceppe.

Not something one hears often.

[Grey Fox]

Who's that MP again that was elected at 20 & quit in 2008. Longest serving member, I believe?

[Malthus]

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.

Heh, have a look at this thread. Who is being unfairly characterized here? Who has had their argument reduced to a strawman? Been told that they have no legitimate right to have an opinion?

Seems odd that your "side" of the debate is allowed, without comment by you other than endorsement, to totally mischaracterize what I'm saying and to claim I don't get a right to say it - but somehow the "tone" is *my* fault. 

[Malthus]

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.

Note to Grallon - check out my earlier post *above* yours:

Think of it this way - if the Cons, facing sagging polls, decided to beat the drum about their social-conservative agenda - re-introduce the gay marriage debate and the abortion debate for starters - and, in the subsequent election they got totally humiliated - reduced to a mere handful of seats - would it not be a reasonable indication that perhaps the voters, of whatever type, were simply not interested in turning the clock back on those debates, even though many if not most of them self-identify as "social conservatives"?

That does not mean of course that the voters may never be interested in them again.

Speaking of "blind spots" - you don't recognize when you agree with someone you have decided is 'the enemy'! 

[Oexmelin]

Seems odd that your "side" of the debate is allowed, without comment by you other than endorsement, to totally mischaracterize what I'm saying and to claim I don't get a right to say it - but somehow the "tone" is *my* fault. 

I read this thread, but also the other one, and both got conflated in the many arguments. I stand by what I wrote above. At first, no one ascribed to you any wishful thinking - I, and Grallon - ascribed it to "many in English Canada", because the question "is it the death of separatism" comes back everytime in the English-speaking media. You took it upon yourself on your own, and replied in what I felt was a much more aggressive and dismissal way. Perhaps it is the effect of those laughing smilies, which I loathe. Grallon's tone is his own, and it would come to no surprise that he is, on that topic, in this thread, as he is in every other one. That is usually not your modus operandi.

I wouldn't bother writing this if I didn't respect you.

[Jacob]

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>.

Well, there's no need to hide it now, so we'll see what it really amounts to

[Jacob]

Yeah, it'll be another point of interest how the Conservatives handle Quebec, given it's primarily represented by the NDP at this point.

[Barrister]

Yeah, it'll be another point of interest how the Conservatives handle Quebec, given it's primarily represented by the NDP at this point.

Stephen Harper would have learned during his time as a Reform MP that it doesn't play well in English Canada to be openly antagonistic to Quebec.  He will handle Quebec the same way he has always handled Quebec - carefully.

But as was seen in the QC arena funding story, there's limits to what this government will do for Quebec.

[Malthus]

Seems odd that your "side" of the debate is allowed, without comment by you other than endorsement, to totally mischaracterize what I'm saying and to claim I don't get a right to say it - but somehow the "tone" is *my* fault. 

I read this thread, but also the other one, and both got conflated in the many arguments. I stand by what I wrote above. At first, no one ascribed to you any wishful thinking - I, and Grallon - ascribed it to "many in English Canada", because the question "is it the death of separatism" comes back everytime in the English-speaking media. You took it upon yourself on your own, and replied in what I felt was a much more aggressive and dismissal way. Perhaps it is the effect of those laughing smilies, which I loathe. Grallon's tone is his own, and it would come to no surprise that he is, on that topic, in this thread, as he is in every other one. That is usually not your modus operandi.

I wouldn't bother writing this if I didn't respect you.

It's not reasonable to state that this post from Grallon doesn't refer to me, specifically, given I'm named in it.

And no Malthus - the collapse of the Bloc doesn't mean the end of Quebec's nationalism - despite the wishful thinking of Canadians. 

The obvious innuendo is that I'm included in the Canadians indulging in "wishful thinking". Why else have a  at the end of the sentence?

[Malthus]

Yeah, it'll be another point of interest how the Conservatives handle Quebec, given it's primarily represented by the NDP at this point.

If he takes the long view, he'll attempt to make inroads into Quebec at all costs. This election gave him a majority under unusual circumstances - a collapse of libs in Ontario - that he can't count on in the future: he will need to expand holdings in Quebec if he expects a majority next time.

[crazy canuck]

I get a kick out of hearing some media outlets saying that now Harper is going to be forced to play to his core supporters who are the media tells us are a bunch of hardcore rightwing loonies.

I am not sure why the media (and others) have the impression that the Conservative majority is build on a core of the right wing fringe.  I think it takes only a moment on thoughtful reflection to understand that Harper is successful because he moderated the Conservatives and that in fact his "core" are people a lot like me.

Yes I am certainly to the right of Zoupa (who isnt) but I am no social conservative (in the evil hidden agenda sense of that word) and I doubt many people who voted conservative in this election are either.

So tell me, who is the evil core of support everyone is worried about?

[Malthus]

I get a kick out of hearing some media outlets saying that now Harper is going to be forced to play to his core supporters who are the media tells us are a bunch of hardcore rightwing loonies.

I am not sure why the media (and others) have the impression that the Conservative majority is build on a core of the right wing fringe.  I think it takes only a moment on thoughtful reflection to understand that Harper is successful because he moderated the Conservatives and that in fact his "core" are people a lot like me.

Yes I am certainly to the right of Zoupa (who isnt) but I am no social conservative (in the evil hidden agenda sense of that word) and I doubt many people who voted conservative in this election are either.

So tell me, who is the evil core of support everyone is worried about?

Indeed, the more he sells out the hardcore social conservatives, the more he achieves his ambition - to replace the Libs as the "natural governing party".

You can't get a majority gov't here without winning over either southern ontario or Quebec - neither of which will vote for hardcore social conservatives. He knows this.