[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

I get that. Still, it seems disingenuous for you to blame the Anglos for voting for one party rather than blaming the Francos for splitting their votes.

People voting for the same party, no matter the scandal, the arrests, the political positioning on various issues, for over 50 years should not be blamed in a democracy?  Curious.  I sometimes think the anglo-Quebecois would be happy with a Liberal dictatorship for life

Seems dumb to blame them, when they are a tiny minority of the electorate. But blaming then for PQ's failure is particuarly bizzare, when even Grallon didn't vote PQ! 

Nobody's blaming them for that.  Except the hardcore PQ members, maybe, but even then, they seem more intent on callins franco-quebecois morons and idiots for not voting them back in power, as if they deserved it.

Read the thread. GF *is* expressly blaming Anglos for this election - which is what Jacob and I were responding to.

[Malthus]

Problem is, the leader of the CAQ used to be a sovereigntist, and what he's offering is essentially a moratorium of a decade on sovereignty-talk. It's hardly very attractive to Anglos.

How so?  Is he elected Premier for life?  He says he won't hold a referendum, he says his party won't hold a referendum for 2 mandate for sure, and then it will have to be evaluated again.  It seems to me the logical choice for people who value integrity&good governance is to vote for the only party not accused of illegal financing with no member in its rang (so far) facing charges of corruption or even mere rumours.  When Quebecois vote Bloc because they don't like Albertan politics and the Liberal corruption, they are called stupid by the rest of Canada.  But if it's Anglo-Quebecois dumbly voting for the same party over&over, no matter who's there, it's a good thing... It is strange...

What are they risking?  There's gonna be no referendum during the mandate he says.  If he lied on such a critical issue, he'd lose a majority of his seats at the next election

Try to look at this from an Anglo POV.

The issue is whether to vote for party A or party B. Party B is full of folks who don't like you - who, in fact, would be happier if you were gone. They agree not to bring up a referendum (for a limited time), because they know it is political poison, not because they have suddenly developed a love and appreciation for the Anglo minority. Why on earth vote for them - particularly if, by so doing, you may split the anti-PQ vote, perhaps allowing a PQ minority to squeak in? Makes no sense.

[crazy canuck]

But if I was an Anglo-Quebecker I'd feel like I was in a pretty hard spot.  The other parties always seem like they compete against each other to see how can be the most anti-English language, and all flirt with sovereignty to one degree or another.

Remember you vote for the parties available, not the party you wished was available.

It seems for English Canadians, being a sovereignist once in your life is a stain as big as if you were a rapist.  Again, strange.

That wasnt BB's point.  If one wanted certainty that Quebec will not hold a referendum there was only one choice in this election.

[crazy canuck]

Problem is, the leader of the CAQ used to be a sovereigntist, and what he's offering is essentially a moratorium of a decade on sovereignty-talk. It's hardly very attractive to Anglos.

How so?  Is he elected Premier for life?  He says he won't hold a referendum, he says his party won't hold a referendum for 2 mandate for sure, and then it will have to be evaluated again.  It seems to me the logical choice for people who value integrity&good governance is to vote for the only party not accused of illegal financing with no member in its rang (so far) facing charges of corruption or even mere rumours.  When Quebecois vote Bloc because they don't like Albertan politics and the Liberal corruption, they are called stupid by the rest of Canada.  But if it's Anglo-Quebecois dumbly voting for the same party over&over, no matter who's there, it's a good thing... It is strange...

What are they risking?  There's gonna be no referendum during the mandate he says.  If he lied on such a critical issue, he'd lose a majority of his seats at the next election

Try to look at this from an Anglo POV.

The issue is whether to vote for party A or party B. Party B is full of folks who don't like you - who, in fact, would be happier if you were gone. They agree not to bring up a referendum (for a limited time), because they know it is political poison, not because they have suddenly developed a love and appreciation for the Anglo minority. Why on earth vote for them - particularly if, by so doing, you may split the anti-PQ vote, perhaps allowing a PQ minority to squeak in? Makes no sense.

Exactly so.

[Neil]

Maybe in four years the ADQ might be established enough to earn some trust.  But even judging by the reactions of posters here, I get the impression that the party won't last.  Who else are they supposed to vote for?

So, they are conservatives, essentially.  they like their old shoes, they don't even want to hear about a new pair.

Your government is a little more serious than your footwear.

[Grallon]

Such heart warming unanimity don't you think Viper?  Don't you understand yet that they won't be happy until we're all securely neutered, until we've given up and abandoned our culture and identity to parrot theirs which, obviously in their mind, is vastly superior (cue Neil and his one-liners)?

I remain a separatist gentlemen, and your collective attitude merely reinforces this, especially Malthus's rabid multiculturalist cant!  And I'm not alone.  However I voted CAQ to punish the PQ for their arrogant amateurism.  The PQ brand is finished - it no longer sells - *that* is the message of Monday's election.  And it is not to be confused with the end of our distinct identity and the will to see it prosper.  Do you all seriously think we'll fold and disappear and stop believing we are our own people?!  Then you're in for a bad wake up call at some point in the future.

As a matter of fact I wrote on a political blog today that if the PQ members are really serious about their desire to see Quebec freed one day, they should acknowledge my assessment and scuttle the party to start something new, adapted to the XXIst century.  When a car is broken you take it to the scrapyard and buy another one.  I also wrote that Quebec's independence cannot happen without the anglophone minority.  That's one key to it - breaking that monolithic voting bloc - because they'll go on voting for the Liberals so long as there's no alternative.  It could be the CAQ or something entirely new.  Therefore a new strategy needs to be formulated.

But mark my words, the Charter had a 'clear majority' behind it, because a 'clear majority' does in fact reject the brand of multikulti you people embrace so blindly.  Now whether or not the new PM will attend to this or, in a typical Liberal fashion, will do nothing and let things slide remains to be seen.  But I predict the 'laissez-faire' approach will only increase the people's desire for something like it.  Call it xenophobic all you like the fact remains our history has made us deeply allergic to & suspicious of religion - and that sentiment bridges the separatist-federalist divide.

What needs to happen now is to let the idea of independence lie fallow for a time while we rebuild our house.




G.

[Barrister]

As a matter of fact I wrote on a political blog today that if the PQ members are really serious about their desire to see Quebec freed one day, they should acknowledge my assessment and scuttle the party to start something new, adapted to the XXIst century.  When a car is broken you take it to the scrapyard and buy another one.  I also wrote that Quebec's independence cannot happen without the anglophone minority.  That's one key to it - breaking that monolithic voting bloc - because they'll go on voting for the Liberals so long as there's no alternative.  It could be the CAQ or something entirely new.  Therefore a new strategy needs to be formulated.

The trouble with that is you have to provide the anglo minority a good, self-interested reason to want to support independence.  That might be challenging to do.

[crazy canuck]

Such heart warming unanimity don't you think Viper?  Don't you understand yet that they won't be happy until we're all securely neutered

Why would any Anglo in Quebec feel the least bit threatened 

[viper37]

The issue is whether to vote for party A or party B. Party B is full of folks who don't like you - who, in fact, would be happier if you were gone. They agree not to bring up a referendum (for a limited time), because they know it is political poison, not because they have suddenly developed a love and appreciation for the Anglo minority. Why on earth vote for them - particularly if, by so doing, you may split the anti-PQ vote, perhaps allowing a PQ minority to squeak in? Makes no sense.

it is based on a wrong perception.  Given that the people of this party, whom you accuse of dislinking the anglos fought against the proposed toughening of law 101, fought against the PQ idea of depriving the soldiers from bilingual education, fought against the PQ for reducing the hours of english teachning in elementary schools and proposed all kind of various economic measures, I don't see how, rationally, one can arrive at this conclusion.

Also given that roughly 2/3 of the party were once Liberal supporters, I still can't see how to arrive at this conclusion.

[crazy canuck]

The issue is whether to vote for party A or party B. Party B is full of folks who don't like you - who, in fact, would be happier if you were gone. They agree not to bring up a referendum (for a limited time), because they know it is political poison, not because they have suddenly developed a love and appreciation for the Anglo minority. Why on earth vote for them - particularly if, by so doing, you may split the anti-PQ vote, perhaps allowing a PQ minority to squeak in? Makes no sense.

it is based on a wrong perception. 

Honestly though.  If you were an Anglo in Quebec faced with the likes of Grallon running things, wouldnt you do everything to avoid that potential fate?

[viper37]

That wasnt BB's point.  If one wanted certainty that Quebec will not hold a referendum there was only one choice in this election.

I'm not referring to BB's ideas exclusively, though I've seen it on more than one occasion "I can't trust him, he voted 'Yes' in 1995".  We've also seen an ex-PQ supporter nearly lynched in Ottawa because he was named head of one hospital there.

It's sorta silly to reject competent people because of their past political affiliation.  If we were to do that with Federal politicians, lots of Conservatives would lose their job, due to prior assocation with right-wing extremist groups.  But that's ok, I guess. It's not as bad as being a PQ member once upon a time

[viper37]

Honestly though.  If you were an Anglo in Quebec faced with the likes of Grallon running things, wouldnt you do everything to avoid that potential fate?

Although Grallon recently admitted voting for the CAQ, he has always been a staunch supporter of the PQ.

And no, if I was an anglo, I wouldn't for the 2012-2014 PQ for sure.  Heck, I'm a franco and I didn't vote for them since Lucien Bouchard was thrown out of the party.

But in the past?  Bouchard formed a pretty decent government, there were no anti-anglo discourse or policies tolerated for as long as he was there, heck, his wife at the time was an english speaking american and his sons received bilingual education.

And we were discussing about reasonable alternatives.  Quebec Solidaire for the hardcore leftists, there's got to be a few of those even amongts english quebecers?  Centre-right and rightwingers could have supported the ADQ from time to time.  Nope.  They rallied against anything not Liberal.  I could even understand past opposition to Duplessis, given he was a staunch Catholic and anti-Protestant zealot, and I guess religion was still an important part of English speaking Quebecers at the time, but recently?  There's no excuse for sticking time after time with the same party generation after generation, scandal after scandal.

I ain't even suggesting they switch all their votes to another party. But sometimes, seeing ups and downs in their support the PLQ... the only time they did it was for a party even more radical than the Libs, Alliance-Québec

[viper37]

Such heart warming unanimity don't you think Viper?  Don't you understand yet that they won't be happy until we're all securely neutered, until we've given up and abandoned our culture and identity to parrot theirs which, obviously in their mind, is vastly superior (cue Neil and his one-liners)?

Bah.  Neil is trolling all day long on this forum.

The others, I think they just don't realise what it is they're suggesting.  Language and culture are seen are mere tools by a majority of english canadians and americans, not as the basis of identity.  I suspect for many religion is the upmost important thing, while it's totally irrelevant for us, well for me, anyway.

Do you all seriously think we'll fold and disappear and stop believing we are our own people?!  Then you're in for a bad wake up call at some point in the future.

hmm. I haven't read english canada's papers since tuesday, but I suspect that is not the case and you are exagerating.

As a matter of fact I wrote on a political blog today that if the PQ members are really serious about their desire to see Quebec freed one day, they should acknowledge my assessment and scuttle the party to start something new, adapted to the XXIst century.  When a car is broken you take it to the scrapyard and buy another one.  I also wrote that Quebec's independence cannot happen without the anglophone minority.  That's one key to it - breaking that monolithic voting bloc - because they'll go on voting for the Liberals so long as there's no alternative.  It could be the CAQ or something entirely new.  Therefore a new strategy needs to be formulated.

Anglos aren't dumb.  they'll never vote for a party to proposes transforming them into a minority without any 'grand brother' to protect them.  I guess they know our history too

But mark my words, the Charter had a 'clear majority' behind it, because a 'clear majority' does in fact reject the brand of multikulti you people embrace so blindly.  Now whether or not the new PM will attend to this or, in a typical Liberal fashion, will do nothing and let things slide remains to be seen.  But I predict the 'laissez-faire' approach will only increase the people's desire for something like it.  Call it xenophobic all you like the fact remains our history has made us deeply allergic to & suspicious of religion - and that sentiment bridges the separatist-federalist divide.

The Charter had a clear majority for most of its articles, but even then, it wasn't the absolute #1 priority for most Quebecers, something the PQ badly misread.

I heard somewhere that Marois was reluctant to go into election, that it was Lisée&co who wanted to rush in, even since last fall.

What needs to happen now is to let the idea of independence lie fallow for a time while we rebuild our house.
G.

Well, I've been saying that for years.  Let's clean our own mess, let's make the most of what we have, let's rebuild our pride, let us be the Delaware of Canada, then we'll split.  If it takes an hundred years, so shall it be.

[Neil]

Honestly though.  If you were an Anglo in Quebec faced with the likes of Grallon running things, wouldnt you do everything to avoid that potential fate?

Although Grallon recently admitted voting for the CAQ, he has always been a staunch supporter of the PQ.

And no, if I was an anglo, I wouldn't for the 2012-2014 PQ for sure.  Heck, I'm a franco and I didn't vote for them since Lucien Bouchard was thrown out of the party.

But in the past?  Bouchard formed a pretty decent government, there were no anti-anglo discourse or policies tolerated for as long as he was there, heck, his wife at the time was an english speaking american and his sons received bilingual education.

And we were discussing about reasonable alternatives.  Quebec Solidaire for the hardcore leftists, there's got to be a few of those even amongts english quebecers?  Centre-right and rightwingers could have supported the ADQ from time to time.  Nope.  They rallied against anything not Liberal.  I could even understand past opposition to Duplessis, given he was a staunch Catholic and anti-Protestant zealot, and I guess religion was still an important part of English speaking Quebecers at the time, but recently?  There's no excuse for sticking time after time with the same party generation after generation, scandal after scandal.

I ain't even suggesting they switch all their votes to another party. But sometimes, seeing ups and downs in their support the PLQ... the only time they did it was for a party even more radical than the Libs, Alliance-Québec

But for them to switch their votes to another party, there needs to be another party for them to switch their votes to.  Hardcore leftists are a tiny, irrelevant part of any population.  And centre-right types could have supported ADQ, but the overriding issue for anglos is sovereignty.  Even if the guy says 'Oh, we're not going to have a referendum anytime soon, but we'd like to see a separate Quebec one day', that's a non-starter.  And as for Duplessis, religion was important to just about EVERYONE in the 40s and 50s.

There's also an element of strategy to it, to be sure.  The anglo bloc could be disgusted with Liberal scandals, but they know that if they don't turn out in red on election day, they're going to end up with a PQ government that is fairly hostile to them.  Sure, a good old Tory like Bouchard might tolerate them, but that's a big risk to take.

[Barrister]

I'm reminded of when the Federal Liberals talk about how they really should start appealing to Albertans.

The problem is they view it as a problem of technique - how can they convince Albertans that the Liberal Party is right for them.  But really the problem is one of substance - Liberal policies don't do anything helpful to Alberta (and instead are often harmful).