 |
|
 forthright |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear fellow lefties, So you're upset that the Conservatives have won a (smallish) majority, and now have 165 seats instead of 143. Okay, I get that. Harper's a clod, and he clearly has authoritarian tendencies, and giving him the ability to pass his legislative agenda for the next four years isn't exactly super-duper. But I want to put things into perspective.
- 104 seats. 104. With increased representation throughout the country. Layton in Stornoway and the NDP with massive parliamentary resources that come with being Official Opposition. Seriously, guys.
- This result came about as much because of Liberal and Bloc collapse than anything else. Don't assume that the Conservatives won because you voted NDP, or because some riding went NDP. You can't just add up the Liberal and NDP votes for a riding as a 'left' bloc and then cry "oh, woe, vote splitting". Just because the Liberals may have been your second choice doesn't mean that the NDP would have been every Liberal voter's second choice. It is very clear that a large number of traditional LPC voters (perhaps as many as half) are willing to migrate to the Conservatives before the NDP. Most of the Conservative pickups were in the 905 belt (hardly friendly territory for the NDP)
- Remember that just seven years ago the Liberals were governing with a majority larger than what Harper will have now, and the NDP had 13 seats nationwide. This too shall pass.
- I won't arrogantly claim that separatism is dead in Quebec, but the Bloc is reduced to a rump of, right now, 3 seats. Three. I suspect that the sovereignty movement will now pass out of federal politics. This is a good thing inasmuch as it gets rid of some artificial electoral distortions relating to first-past-the-post, but also, it gets rid of a lot of annoying separatists from Parliament.
- But it also shows real unity in Quebec. The NDP won not only in separatist strongholds, but also in Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine and Westmount-Ville-Marie, which have been Liberal anglophone strongholds since the Dawn of Time.
- We no longer have to see Michael Ignatieff's smug face. Well, okay, he hasn't resigned yet, but he lost his seat and his party was crushed - it's just a matter of time.
- Elizabeth May. Okay, you may not agree with her, but her presence in Parliament means that at long last, the media outlets will have to enforce their rule and give the Greens a place in leadership debates, which is long overdue.
- Do we really think that a minority NDP-Liberal coalition would have been able to put through an aggressive left-wing agenda? Clearly not. The NDP was never going to win the most seats outright. Any coalition was going to be fragile, if it even happened - there's every likelihood that Ignatieff would have cast his lot with the Tories instead. And in any case, the likelihood that LPC + NDP > 154 was very, very small, so then you have to contend with the Bloc. Whatever they would have managed, it clearly would have been fleeting.
- This puts to rest the 'NDP won't turn out' myth. Clearly they did, in large numbers, everywhere. The surge was real, and probably they hit it right at its maximum, to great effect.
- Yes, Harper's Old-Timey Canadiocracy is going to put through some ridiculous legislation now and then, but they are sitting on, what, 39% of the popular vote. They are going to be thinking ahead to the next election, because 165 is hardly a comfortable majority, and they are going to have to tack to the center at least some of the time or else risk getting drummed out of office.
- Let's reflect on what would have happened with dozens of brand-new Quebec MPs most of whom, a month ago, had absolutely no chance of winning, some of whom don't speak good French despite representing massively francophone ridings, and many of whom have absolutely no legislative experience at any level. Seriously, who takes a vacation in the middle of an electoral campaign? This gives the novices a chance to become seasoned without dumping them into roles in the government that they aren't prepared to handle, and gives the NDP a chance to build a real base of support. The NDP already gets saddled with a reputation for incompetent governance, unfairly - let's be glad not to have it compounded.
- Layton has been playing the long game for seven years now. Remember how we laughed when he came to Montreal? Who's laughing now? October 19, 2015 is not so long.
Tags: politics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: sorceror |
Date:
May 3rd, 2011 08:01 am (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
Bah, humbug.
|
Those 104 seats are mostly going to evaporate in the next election - maybe even before, as separatists in the NDP caucus defect to the Bloc. But certainly by the time the next election rolls around, the NDP will have been subjected to much greater scrutiny - and that will lead to their losing votes. It'll be like the ADQ in Quebec between the 2007 and 2008 elections.
If anything, the dominance of Quebec in the NDP caucus is going to strengthen separatism, because that's where the votes came from, damn you to hell, Mulcair. It's Mulroney all over again. We saw hints of this in Duceppe's concession speech, when he said that Quebec had decided to give *one* *last* *chance* to a federalist party. He knows damn well that the NDP cannot deliver what it has promised: when it fails, watch out. Seriously. The NDP caucus now has 61 seats in Quebec. That's seven more than the Bloc itself ever had.
Will Layton still be NDP leader by 2015? I'm not so sure.
Don't think that the Conservatives are about to bring back the death penalty, criminalize abortion, and make it legal to eat puppies. They want to win a majority next time too. And that means that the sky isn't falling (probably): they'll be far slower in bringing about changes than the Chicken Littles of the world fear. Or if they aren't, the better the chance that they'll be tossed out on their collective ear come the next election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: forthright |
Date:
May 3rd, 2011 03:33 pm (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
Re: Bah, humbug.
|
# Those 104 seats are mostly going to evaporate in the next election - maybe even before, as separatists in the NDP caucus defect to the Bloc. But certainly by the time the next election rolls around, the NDP will have been subjected to much greater scrutiny - and that will lead to their losing votes. It'll be like the ADQ in Quebec between the 2007 and 2008 elections.
Of course the NDP will be under greater scrutiny, but it is NOT like the ADQ or Reform. The NDP has been around for 50 years, has run several provincial governments, etc., etc. If people are ignorant of what the NDP stands for it's not because no one's had the opportunity to look.
As for the possibility of defections, are you really suggesting that members of the Official Opposition are going to defect to a party with no official status? Really really? Even if there are a bunch of crypto-separatists in the new NDP caucus (which I greatly doubt) they ain't going anywhere.
If anything, the dominance of Quebec in the NDP caucus is going to strengthen separatism, because that's where the votes came from, damn you to hell, Mulcair. It's Mulroney all over again. We saw hints of this in Duceppe's concession speech, when he said that Quebec had decided to give *one* *last* *chance* to a federalist party. He knows damn well that the NDP cannot deliver what it has promised: when it fails, watch out. Seriously. The NDP caucus now has 61 seats in Quebec. That's seven more than the Bloc itself ever had.
I disagree with your analysis on where the NDP vote came from. It came, in my opinion, from the fact that young Quebeckers are overwhelmingly social-democratic in politics. This is why you see orange in anglo Montreal (though it looks like Garneau hung on in Westmount, hmm?).
But here's the thing: being in opposition gives them the perfect opportunity to say, "Hey, look, it's Harper's fault - he's the one with a majority." What you describe better suits what would have happened under a narrow Liberal/NDP coalition.
And for the record: since when did you take anything Duceppe said as the truth? Why would we believe that this is one last chance - that's just wishful thinking by Duceppe.
Will Layton still be NDP leader by 2015? I'm not so sure.
Agreed, and I was using Layton as a metonym for the NDP. There are around 40 veteran NDP MPs, as well as rich resources at the provincial level, to take his place should he prove to be the Moses of the party.
Don't think that the Conservatives are about to bring back the death penalty, criminalize abortion, and make it legal to eat puppies. They want to win a majority next time too. And that means that the sky isn't falling (probably): they'll be far slower in bringing about changes than the Chicken Littles of the world fear. Or if they aren't, the better the chance that they'll be tossed out on their collective ear come the next election.
I absolutely agree, see my point #10 above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: sorceror |
Date:
May 3rd, 2011 04:35 pm (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
Re: Bah, humbug.
|
Of course the NDP will be under greater scrutiny, but it is NOT like the ADQ or Reform. The NDP has been around for 50 years, has run several provincial governments, etc., etc. If people are ignorant of what the NDP stands for it's not because no one's had the opportunity to look.
Perhaps the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives are a better comparison, then. They too were beneficiaries of a sea change in Quebec... but only because their leader pandered to the separatist movement. That ultimately proved untenable, and both the party and the country paid the price.
I don't think the rest of the country realizes that Jack Layton has basically done the same thing. The NDP's "Sherbrooke Declaration" basically guts the Clarity Act, and he supports extending Bill 101 to federal jurisdictions. Once that becomes clear to the rest of the country - which still remembers the consequences of Mulroney's similar behaviour very well - it will cause problems for the NDP. They'll either have to renounce these positions, alienating their Quebec support; or reaffirm them, alienating the rest of the country.
As for the possibility of defections, are you really suggesting that members of the Official Opposition are going to defect to a party with no official status? Really really? Even if there are a bunch of crypto-separatists in the new NDP caucus (which I greatly doubt) they ain't going anywhere.
Lucien Bouchard did it - he left a government in which he was a Cabinet Minister. Why wouldn't others?
Separatism isn't based on rational self-interest (or greed): it's a religion. If they think it will rekindle the separatist flame, you can be sure that any crypto-separatists in the NDP caucus will leap at the chance to leave the party in the most damaging way possible, loudly decrying how they have once again been humiliated for attempting federalism. Just you wait: it's going to happen. Mark my words.
I disagree with your analysis on where the NDP vote came from. It came, in my opinion, from the fact that young Quebeckers are overwhelmingly social-democratic in politics.
I think the NDP's position on (or rather, opposition to) the Clarity Act and official bilingualism was the key. If the shift wasn't basically due to former separatist, why was it the Bloc that was reduced to a rump party in Quebec, rather than the Liberals and/or Conservatives?
Yes, it looks like Garneau held on, just barely.
As for throwing up their hands and saying they can't do anything when the Conservatives have a majority, that just isn't going to fly. I mention Duceppe not because I think he's right, but because he demonstrated the tack that the separatist movement is now going to take. As I say above, the NDP is going to be confronted on its policies on the Clarity Act and so on - you can be sure that if the PQ wins the next provincial election as they are currently expected to do, national unity is going to be front and centre for the next few years.
If the NPD backs off of its current positions on national unity issues, the separatists will scream once more about how humiliated they are, this was federalism's last chance, blah blah blah. And if the NDP sticks to its guns, I believe they will be soundly rejected by the rest of the country - and the separatists will scream about how the Rest of Canada wishes to thwart Quebec's legitimate aspirations, blah blah blah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: forthright |
Date:
May 4th, 2011 03:00 pm (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
Re: Bah, humbug.
|
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see the Clarity Act as particularly flawed but neither do I see it as particularly useful as a political strategy. Sherbrooke, equally a political document, equally imperfect, recognizes that Quebeckers have self-determination rights, which should hardly be surprising under international law. The NDP hasn't been against the Clarity Act in a long time, despite the smears of Conservative policy wonks. They are certainly not perfect on national unity issues but neither are the Harper Conservatives - ADQ, anyone?
Bouchard left to build a new party, not to join the decaying husk of one. I would be extremely shocked to see any of these brand-new NDP MPs jumping ship.
But ultimately I think the error is to think that anyone who has ever said anything that sounds vaguely nationalistic or has ever voted for a separatist party is thereafter a Dirty No-Good Separatist. Honestly, left-leaning social democrats in Quebec hardly had any other option than to go to the NDP. If we spend all our time demonizing people who may feel that they are Quebeckers first, Canadians second (or not at all), we are hardly going to change their minds.
(PS: The Liberals and the Conservatives have been reduced to a rump party in Quebec.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: sorceror |
Date:
May 4th, 2011 04:01 pm (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
Re: Bah, humbug.
|
I don't see the Clarity Act as particularly flawed but neither do I see it as particularly useful as a political strategy.Then we do disagree, because I think that it's absolutely crucial that Canadian federalists stand very strongly against the insane idea that the separatists have some sort of right to run the whole referendum process in whatever fashion they think will trick the most voters into voting in their favour, and to dictate the terms of separation afterward. Allowing that to continue is foolish and dangerous. The NDP hasn't been against the Clarity Act in a long time, despite the smears of Conservative policy wonks.They most assuredly *do* oppose the Clarity Act. They may claim to support it (as Jack Layton belatedly realized that it would be political suicide to continue to oppose it), but in fact they unequivocally condemn the central provisions of it. The NDP is trying to have it both ways, but their position on this issue collapses under close scrutiny. Bouchard left to build a new party, not to join the decaying husk of one. I would be extremely shocked to see any of these brand-new NDP MPs jumping ship.They will leave to rebuild an old party, which is nowhere near as dead or decaying as you seem to think. Just wait. Once it's clear that the NDP can't deliver what they've promised, there will be problems. The next time separatism experiences a resurgence, things may change very quickly. But ultimately I think the error is to think that anyone who has ever said anything that sounds vaguely nationalistic or has ever voted for a separatist party is thereafter a Dirty No-Good Separatist.I'm perfectly willing to accept that they're no longer separatist when they renounce separatism. But they haven't had to do that to join the NDP: Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair have swung the NDP's national unity policy in alignment with separatist principles. You do realize that the NDP was openly supported by separatists who are still openly separatists, right? If we spend all our time demonizing people who may feel that they are Quebeckers first, Canadians second (or not at all), It isn't a question of demonizing people. It's about recognizing and acknowledging what they really stand for. we are hardly going to change their minds.On the contrary: we are never going to change anyone's mind by pretending we agree with them. One of the reasons why the separatist cause continues to survive is that none of our politicians has the guts - or basic decency - to speak against the myths that the separatists perpetuate. At present, the NDP is simply feeding into that cycle. It can do no good to the cause of national unity, and it will very likely do harm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: forthright |
Date:
May 4th, 2011 05:01 pm (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
Re: Bah, humbug.
|
The problem is that you are conflating nationalism with separatism in an unsupportable way. Canada is, and has been for decades, a multinational confederation (including the First Nations). Separatism flourishes because some factions across the political spectrum fail to recognize that.
The number of true separatists in Quebec is small, and they continued to vote Bloc this time around (900,000 votes, about one-quarter of all votes cast in Quebec). The PQ and the BQ have managed for years to convince others, hardly separatists by any account, that their interests lie in their direction. The fact that the NDP has been able to do what the Liberals and Conservatives could not is not evidence that the NDP is secretly a separatist party. It's evidence of social and economic policies that convince Quebeckers of all ethnic backgrounds to give the NDP a chance. It is a chance - of course there are risks, the foremost of which to my mind is that some of the new MPs are not ready and will not acquit themselves well. Of course there is no guarantee that the Bloc is dead. But how else was it even remotely going to die, other than one of the parties pulling former BQ voters away?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: sorceror |
Date:
May 4th, 2011 05:52 pm (UTC)
|
| (Link) |
|
Re: Bah, humbug.
|
The fact that the NDP has been able to do what the Liberals and Conservatives could not is not evidence that the NDP is secretly a separatist party.
But the Mulroney Conservatives did do exactly this - entice separatists into their midst by supporting separatist propaganda. And while they claimed to be resolving the national question, in the end they only made it far worse. They put temporary political gain ahead of the best interests of the country (and, as it turned out, the long-term interests of the party).
The NDP hasn't converted the soft nationalists you're talking about to federalism. They've only won their vote, temporarily, by making promises they can't keep. When the "can't keep" part becomes clear, there's a great danger that these voters will go back to supporting the separatist movement - with even greater conviction, this time. Separatism will be strengthened, and what's left of the NDP itself will lose credibility. That's what happened with Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives, and I expect it to happen with the NDP too.
It's evidence of social and economic policies that convince Quebeckers of all ethnic backgrounds to give the NDP a chance.
I think you're giving too much credit to the voters of Quebec, quite frankly. I think most of these support had nothing at all to do with general NDP policies, and a lot to do with Layton's personal charisma and performance in the debates - where under pressure from Duceppe he said exactly what Quebec nationalists want to hear.
But how else was it even remotely going to die, other than one of the parties pulling former BQ voters away?
By discrediting Quebec separatism itself. If you do that, the Bloc dies naturally, and permanently.
I think you're getting the consequence confused with the cause. The goal isn't to destroy the BQ per se: it's to put an end to Quebec separatism as a viable political movement. And you do that by arguing against separatism itself, not by going along with it in order to get votes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Next 
