Anyone have any ideas or opinions on the implication of the Quebec election? Although I don’t follow Quebec politics much, it seems to me to be very good news for federalism. I’m not just talking about the immediate result of a bad showing for the PQ. It seems to me that in the longer term, the fact that there are two strong federalist parties is good news. Until now, whenever voters, rightly or wrongly, decided they needed a change of government, the only alternative was a separatist party with a promise of holding another referendum. Now they have a realist federalist alternative they can choose instead.
Quebec election
- Thread starter someone
- Start date
The dollar went up because the financial community likes stability. The election removed the possibility of a referendum where the yes forces might finally get their majority and send us all into constitutional chaos for the next decade or so. This election also indicates that separation is probably less attractive in Quebec now that they have a credible alternative in the ADQ. I think Harper may take a hit from Quebec in the next election because he got too cozy with Charest who's performance and popularity in QC is nothing to write home about. Also, Quebecers are a politically savvy lot and many of them will see Harpers excessive generosity towards Quebec only a few days before their election as outside interference in their provincial politics and a transparent attempt to buy them off with their own money.Dawgger said:I'm not sure how to interpret it either.The fact that the Cdn dollar was stronger overnight suggests to me that it is good for Canada.
Actually it's bad for manufacturing and exports.Dawgger said:that the Cdn dollar was stronger overnight suggests to me that it is good for Canada.
The good side is that if it isn't really just a spanking for Charest, but rather against the status quo because the PQ lost big time too, then the rise of the ADQ shows that the people want their old values back, and aren't afraid to say so. Meanwhile the rest of Canada still bows to the politically correct to give the smallest minority more rights that the rest of the collective Canadian born citizens. The people of rural Quebec don't want their values or religion and culture dilluted in the whitewash of the influx of new immigration. Mario Dumont made a sales pitch, and people bought into it even though most of the ADQ candidates were unknown to the media.
Charest didn't deliver with his mandate on healthcare or tax cuts, and the last minute offering of tax cuts from the transfer money from Ottawa wasn't enough to gain favour with the majority of Quebec.
I don't think that the ADQ was that credible, until after the voting results came out. Mario Dumont now has a solid footing in the National Assembly. His previous 5 seats was like the NDP. He can promise lots. Let him sit as oppostion for a while. Mario knew he would have trouble running the province because he has so many unknowns, and probably not enough skill with the all the new candadates to run a city let alone a province.slowpoke said:This election also indicates that separation is probably less attractive in Quebec now that they have a credible alternative in the ADQ. I think Harper may take a hit from Quebec in the next election because he got too cozy with Charest who's performance and popularity in QC is nothing to write home about. Also, Quebecers are a politically savvy lot and many of them will see Harpers excessive generosity towards Quebec only a few days before their election as outside interference in their provincial politics and a transparent attempt to buy them off with their own money.
Quebec may have voted seperation in the past because they have felt left out or short changed by Ottawa. But most are small c conservative who vote liberal, and the ADQ addressed values that the Liberal Party didn't. The PQ got whipped, and now it may not be wise for Gilles to step down from the Bloc to run the PQ. The whole thing boils down to the inaction on the part of Liberals to deliver results whether in Ottawa or Quebec. Times are changing.
The biggest cause of Charest's downfall was not delivering on the promises he'd made earlier - just like McGuinty in Ontario. The PQ leader was also one of the least acceptable in recent memory. So Dumont was the beneficiary of this generally mediocre opposition and he appeared "credible-by-comparison". Also, Mario's conservative message about eliminating gov't beaurocracy and addressing the debt probably sounds like a more realistic plan to the average Quebecer. They are tired of being Canada's basket case, unable to survive without extra help from Ottawa. Dumont will have a year or two in opposition before he takes another run at being the leader so if he can avoid the political pitfalls and learn a bit more, he could be a force. We can only hope.pussylicker said:I don't think that the ADQ was that credible, until after the voting results came out. Mario Dumont now has a solid footing in the National Assembly. His previous 5 seats was like the NDP. He can promise lots. Let him sit as oppostion for a while. Mario knew he would have trouble running the province because he has so many unknowns, and probably not enough skill with the all the new candadates to run a city let alone a province.
Quebec may have voted seperation in the past because they have felt left out or short changed by Ottawa. But most are small c conservative who vote liberal, and the ADQ addressed values that the Liberal Party didn't. The PQ got whipped, and now it may not be wise for Gilles to step down from the Bloc to run the PQ. The whole thing boils down to the inaction on the part of Liberals to deliver results whether in Ottawa or Quebec. Times are changing.
Quebeckers want a large state, low taxes, $7-day day care, a huge bureaucracy, and Ontario/Alberta paying for all of it.
And that really is what they want. If Dumont follows through on his pledges to make real headway on reducing the size of the state, he'll face the same relentless opposition that Charest did. And his 'popularity' will drop, probably never again to recover...again just like Charest.
I speak french, and the word I hear cropping up in political discussions again and again in Quebec is 'solidarity', a concept that isn't easily translated into english. Basically it means that successful people must be compelled to 'give something back' through the political system to those less successful.
As for this result being a good one for national unity...well, I totally disagree. The vast majority of French Quebeckers voted for nationalistic parties and they rejected the Liberals, in small part, because they pursued a conciliatory/constructive policy towards the rest of Canada. In other words, Quebeckers would not ever support the Liberals en masse if not for their success in carrying out economic reforms.....when they fail at this, the Liberals are routed. Their naturally conciliatory canada policy is utterly rejected by most French Quebeckers. I think we ought to boot them out of this country.
And that really is what they want. If Dumont follows through on his pledges to make real headway on reducing the size of the state, he'll face the same relentless opposition that Charest did. And his 'popularity' will drop, probably never again to recover...again just like Charest.
I speak french, and the word I hear cropping up in political discussions again and again in Quebec is 'solidarity', a concept that isn't easily translated into english. Basically it means that successful people must be compelled to 'give something back' through the political system to those less successful.
As for this result being a good one for national unity...well, I totally disagree. The vast majority of French Quebeckers voted for nationalistic parties and they rejected the Liberals, in small part, because they pursued a conciliatory/constructive policy towards the rest of Canada. In other words, Quebeckers would not ever support the Liberals en masse if not for their success in carrying out economic reforms.....when they fail at this, the Liberals are routed. Their naturally conciliatory canada policy is utterly rejected by most French Quebeckers. I think we ought to boot them out of this country.
We are on the same page. I was suggesting the strenghtening Cdn. dollar was a result of the Quebec election results which indicates that other countries figure the results are positive.pussylicker said:Actually it's bad for manufacturing and exports.
The good side is that if it isn't really just a spanking for Charest, but rather against the status quo because the PQ lost big time too, then the rise of the ADQ shows that the people want their old values back, and aren't afraid to say so. Meanwhile the rest of Canada still bows to the politically correct to give the smallest minority more rights that the rest of the collective Canadian born citizens. The people of rural Quebec don't want their values or religion and culture dilluted in the whitewash of the influx of new immigration. Mario Dumont made a sales pitch, and people bought into it even though most of the ADQ candidates were unknown to the media.
Charest didn't deliver with his mandate on healthcare or tax cuts, and the last minute offering of tax cuts from the transfer money from Ottawa wasn't enough to gain favour with the majority of Quebec.
I agree that a stronger dollar can produce negative results in manufacturing and exports.
Will the Quebec results hasten a federal election? Harper's comments today did not indicate he was in a hurry to call an election.
Interesting point. I think that is true of any new party or party that has been seen to have no chance of forming a government. The best candidates don’t want to be backbench MLAs (or whatever they are called in Quebec). They want to be ministers. Thus, they are not going to run for a party that has no hope of forming a government. Now that the ADQ has shown that they might form a government in the future, I would expect that they will start getting better candidates in the future. I think that the same thing happened with the federal conservatives (in there various forms, PC, alliance, CP, etc) the last few years. In the next election, they will likely be much better candidates as there is now the hope of becoming a minister if you run for them.pussylicker said:I don't think that the ADQ was that credible, until after the voting results came out. Mario Dumont now has a solid footing in the National Assembly. His previous 5 seats was like the NDP. He can promise lots. Let him sit as oppostion for a while. Mario knew he would have trouble running the province because he has so many unknowns, and probably not enough skill with the all the new candadates to run a city let alone a province.
Last edited:
The BLOC party needs to collapse since they have zero support/seats outside of PQ....how they exist with national party status is beyond me.
Last edited:
Boisclair was also hurt by his admitted use of cocaine while he was a cabinet minister. I'm sure quite a few conservatives and rural Quebecers weren't too eager to have a homosexual drug user leading them into the next referendum. I'd like to think that Quebec had come to its senses by giving all those seats to non-separatists like Charest and Dumont but it may have been partly a protest against Boisclair's controversial lifestyle. Some Quebecers may also have objected to Harper's promoting Charest and interfering in their election so they switched their vote to Dumont in protest. There are a great many voters who are perpetually pissed off about one thing or another so they cast their votes for whoever or whatever is most likely to foil the candidate or party they're angry at.red said:I wonder how much the PQ was hurt by having an openly gay leader. I can imagine that this would not play well in rural quebec where the PQ base has been the strongest. it may not mean anything long term
PQ "Change or Die"
This article makes a convincing argument that the PQ has been ignoring the changes in Quebec politics and that popular support for Quebec sovereignty is disappearing fast. Young Quebecers seem to be less aggrieved at the prospect of remaining within Canada than the PQ trade unionist dinosaurs of old. Now Quebecers are more attuned with the rest of Canada and the election on Monday seems to support that.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...f3710-26bb-4961-bdad-031771b8c36a&k=10078&p=2
..."Joseph Facal, the former PQ minister who yesterday wrote that the PQ needs to "change or die," made a similar argument in 2002, with less dramatic language.
The PQ had to shed its attachment to the heavily interventionist Quebec model of economic development, he said at the time. The government should focus on "the daily preoccupations of the middle class" and distance itself from such interest groups as the trade union movement. His message was unwelcome and he decided to leave politics. Yesterday, he called on the party to break with its "referendum obsession."
In 2003, Mr. Guay was invited to address the PQ during the "season of ideas" it declared following that year's election.
Mr. Guay offered his analysis that Quebecers' passion for sovereignty had been sapped as Quebec made advances within Canada, and it was time to rethink its mission.
"The grapes of wrath have disappeared," he said. For his trouble he was told his ideas were "repulsive," by Bernard Landry, then PQ leader.
The following year, a trio of young PQ MNAs were commissioned to tour the province, taking the pulse of the youth. First they had to find the youth, because the PQ meetings they attended were full of grey hair. The young Quebecers they met saw the sovereignty movement as "outdated, obsolete and timeworn."
Jonathan Valois, one of the authors of the report, said yesterday that the party failed to heed the warning.
Polls were showing dissatisfaction with Premier Jean Charest's Liberals at the time, and the party thought it better not to rock the boat.
"We can see today, it wasn't that [voters] were ready to have us back," said Mr. Valois, who did not run in Monday's election. "They were ready to punish the Charest government."
A fundamental problem for the PQ is that the militants who have been with the party from the beginning are greying, and an indefinite delay in the realization of their dream is unbearable.
"It is too bad that people who saw the birth of the sovereigntist movement want to see it reach its full result, a winning referendum, before they die," Mr. Valois, 36, said.
"When we create a movement as important for a society as that of forming a country, we should also say, maybe it is not my generation who will see it happen. I may no longer be alive. ... I would not even say it is my generation that is going to succeed, because I don't want to start down that road."
Jacques Brassard, a former PQ cabinet minister, wrote yesterday that Mr. Boisclair's leadership will certainly be attacked by impatient separatists, just as Pierre Marc Johnson's was in the 1980s when he proposed softening the sovereigntist program.
Before the day was out, Mr. Landry had joined the chorus of Pequistes blaming their leader.
In an interview with Radio France International, he said Mr. Boisclair "failed to connect" with Quebecers and the party needed to "reflect" on his leadership.
Twenty years ago, political scientist Vincent Lemieux called the PQ a "generational party," like the extinct Union Nationale, and predicted it could expect a lifespan of 30-40 years.
He predicted the next election of "realignment" would not come before the year 2000, and that the next "generational party" might combine Quebec nationalism with laissez-faire economics, much like the ADQ, which became the official opposition Monday.
The PQ's first election was 37 years ago, and today some regard Mr. Lemieux as Quebec's Nostradamus.
"A political cycle ended Monday night, and that is a sign of the beginning of the end for the sovereigntist project," columnist Alain Dubuc wrote in La Presse yesterday.
His prescription for the PQ was to "stop struggling to sell Quebecers on a project they do not want."...
This article makes a convincing argument that the PQ has been ignoring the changes in Quebec politics and that popular support for Quebec sovereignty is disappearing fast. Young Quebecers seem to be less aggrieved at the prospect of remaining within Canada than the PQ trade unionist dinosaurs of old. Now Quebecers are more attuned with the rest of Canada and the election on Monday seems to support that.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...f3710-26bb-4961-bdad-031771b8c36a&k=10078&p=2
..."Joseph Facal, the former PQ minister who yesterday wrote that the PQ needs to "change or die," made a similar argument in 2002, with less dramatic language.
The PQ had to shed its attachment to the heavily interventionist Quebec model of economic development, he said at the time. The government should focus on "the daily preoccupations of the middle class" and distance itself from such interest groups as the trade union movement. His message was unwelcome and he decided to leave politics. Yesterday, he called on the party to break with its "referendum obsession."
In 2003, Mr. Guay was invited to address the PQ during the "season of ideas" it declared following that year's election.
Mr. Guay offered his analysis that Quebecers' passion for sovereignty had been sapped as Quebec made advances within Canada, and it was time to rethink its mission.
"The grapes of wrath have disappeared," he said. For his trouble he was told his ideas were "repulsive," by Bernard Landry, then PQ leader.
The following year, a trio of young PQ MNAs were commissioned to tour the province, taking the pulse of the youth. First they had to find the youth, because the PQ meetings they attended were full of grey hair. The young Quebecers they met saw the sovereignty movement as "outdated, obsolete and timeworn."
Jonathan Valois, one of the authors of the report, said yesterday that the party failed to heed the warning.
Polls were showing dissatisfaction with Premier Jean Charest's Liberals at the time, and the party thought it better not to rock the boat.
"We can see today, it wasn't that [voters] were ready to have us back," said Mr. Valois, who did not run in Monday's election. "They were ready to punish the Charest government."
A fundamental problem for the PQ is that the militants who have been with the party from the beginning are greying, and an indefinite delay in the realization of their dream is unbearable.
"It is too bad that people who saw the birth of the sovereigntist movement want to see it reach its full result, a winning referendum, before they die," Mr. Valois, 36, said.
"When we create a movement as important for a society as that of forming a country, we should also say, maybe it is not my generation who will see it happen. I may no longer be alive. ... I would not even say it is my generation that is going to succeed, because I don't want to start down that road."
Jacques Brassard, a former PQ cabinet minister, wrote yesterday that Mr. Boisclair's leadership will certainly be attacked by impatient separatists, just as Pierre Marc Johnson's was in the 1980s when he proposed softening the sovereigntist program.
Before the day was out, Mr. Landry had joined the chorus of Pequistes blaming their leader.
In an interview with Radio France International, he said Mr. Boisclair "failed to connect" with Quebecers and the party needed to "reflect" on his leadership.
Twenty years ago, political scientist Vincent Lemieux called the PQ a "generational party," like the extinct Union Nationale, and predicted it could expect a lifespan of 30-40 years.
He predicted the next election of "realignment" would not come before the year 2000, and that the next "generational party" might combine Quebec nationalism with laissez-faire economics, much like the ADQ, which became the official opposition Monday.
The PQ's first election was 37 years ago, and today some regard Mr. Lemieux as Quebec's Nostradamus.
"A political cycle ended Monday night, and that is a sign of the beginning of the end for the sovereigntist project," columnist Alain Dubuc wrote in La Presse yesterday.
His prescription for the PQ was to "stop struggling to sell Quebecers on a project they do not want."...
The dollar went up because oil went up. Whenever commodity prices go up the Canadian dollar goes up. The international monetary community decided a long time ago that they didn't give a damn about Quebec.slowpoke said:The dollar went up because the financial community likes stability. The election removed the possibility of a referendum where the yes forces might finally get their majority and send us all into constitutional chaos for the next decade or so. .
I think it was a bit of both. Our dollar seems to be in lockstep with resource / commodity prices but the financial community doesn't like the prospect of Canada coming apart at the seams if there was a referendum with a yes result.train said:The dollar went up because oil went up. Whenever commodity prices go up the Canadian dollar goes up. The international monetary community decided a long time ago that they didn't give a damn about Quebec.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070327.wdollar0327/BNStory/Business/
Loonie rises as separation fears ebb
TAVIA GRANT
Globe and Mail Update
The Canadian dollar gained steam Tuesday after Quebec election results squelched the odds of separation.
Quebeckers elected their first minority government in more than 125 years. The Parti Québécois was the main loser, with the sovereigntist party recording less than 30 per cent of the popular vote for the first time since 1970.
The loonie added more than one-third of a cent — after sliding yesterday on separation concerns — as the showing suggested a waning interest in the issue. The Liberal Party won the most seats, but it was Mario Dumont and his upstart Action Démocratique du Québec that emerged as the big winners of the evening, making gains everywhere except on the Island of Montreal.
“The Canadian dollar has appreciated on the news, despite the fact that the province returned the first minority government since 1878,” said Royal Bank of Canada analysts in a note.
Unlike the voters in Ontario, the people of Quebec have a backbone. Charest didn't deliver, so he didn't get their full confidence in the way of votes. No doubt McGuinty will be voted in again in Ontario. Why, because Ontarian are afraid to rock the boat. God forbid should somebody change the status quo. In Ontario, I think many voters count on the premier not keeping his / her promises. How stunned was the province of Ontario when Mike Harris actually delivered his agenda. It will be interesting to see how the province of Quebec votes in the next federal election. We already know that Ontario will repeat its mindless duty of voting for the Liberals.slowpoke said:The biggest cause of Charest's downfall was not delivering on the promises he'd made earlier - just like McGuinty in Ontario.
Bravo Quebec, for a job well done!
what've they got that I ain't got?
MW
Well, see, we already had a champion with that kind of courage, Mike the Knife. he wasn't afraid to tear the society apart to do the right thing, the one thing really matters: let the rich keep their money, and have more, if possible..pblues said:Unlike the voters in Ontario, the people of Quebec have a backbone. Charest didn't deliver, so he didn't get their full confidence in the way of votes. No doubt McGuinty will be voted in again in Ontario. Why, because Ontarian are afraid to rock the boat. God forbid should somebody change the status quo. In Ontario, I think many voters count on the premier not keeping his / her promises. How stunned was the province of Ontario when Mike Harris actually delivered his agenda. It will be interesting to see how the province of Quebec votes in the next federal election. We already know that Ontario will repeat its mindless duty of voting for the Liberals.
Bravo Quebec, for a job well done!
MW
This is funny. What about the Big Blue Machine?pblues said:We already know that Ontario will repeat its mindless duty of voting for the Liberals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Ontario
The Big Blue Machine, 1943-1985
The Progressive Conservative Party dominated Ontario's political system from 1943 to 1985 and earned the nickname of the Big Blue Machine. During this period the party was led by Red Tory premiers: George Drew, Leslie Frost, John Robarts and Bill Davis. These governments were responsible for some of the province's most progressive social legislation (including the Ontario Code of Human Rights), the creation of most of Ontario's welfare state and social programs, the creation of many Crown Corporations, and strong economic growth. However, in 1985, the party took a radical shift to the right, electing Frank Miller as leader at a leadership convention, following the retirement of popular longtime Red Tory Premier Bill Davis. This shift in policy proved to be unpopular. After 42 years of governing Ontario, the 1985 election reduced the Tories to a minority in the Legislature, with only four seats more than the opposition Liberals. The Tories won fewer votes over all than the Liberals. Miller attempted to forge an alliance with the NDP, as Bill Davis did during his minority terms (1975-1981), but this turned out not to be the case. The Liberals of David Peterson and the New Democrats of Bob Rae decided to form a coalition, ousting Frank Miller, and ending one of the longest political dynasties in Canadian history.
From the Big Blue Machine dynasty to the present (1943-2007), political parties in power in Ontario:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_History/Premiers_of_Ontario
Progressive Conservative: 50 years
Liberal: 10 years
New Democratic Party: 5 years
..if possible, sell valuable public resources and infrastructure, like Ontario Hydro, to private interests.maxweber said:Well, see, we already had a champion with that kind of courage, Mike the Knife. he wasn't afraid to tear the society apart to do the right thing, the one thing really matters: let the rich keep their money, and have more, if possible..
I think we should have gotten rid of Mike Harris before he could even get started on that one.
By the way, today, I like John Tory (former Bill Davis aide) more than Dalton McGuinty.
Last edited:
Tory probably has a good chance of beating McGuinty in ON. The only problem I have with Tory is that he's been politically hibernating for the last few years. He comes out of hiding about twice a year - just long enough to endorse whatever Harper happens to be doing at the time and then he ducks back into his cave. I'd like to know more about what he'd do differently from McGuinty but you'd have to be a psychic to know his position on most issues.markvee said:This is funny. What about the Big Blue Machine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Ontario
The Big Blue Machine, 1943-1985
The Progressive Conservative Party dominated Ontario's political system from 1943 to 1985 and earned the nickname of the Big Blue Machine. During this period the party was led by Red Tory premiers: George Drew, Leslie Frost, John Robarts and Bill Davis. These governments were responsible for some of the province's most progressive social legislation (including the Ontario Code of Human Rights), the creation of most of Ontario's welfare state and social programs, the creation of many Crown Corporations, and strong economic growth. However, in 1985, the party took a radical shift to the right, electing Frank Miller as leader at a leadership convention, following the retirement of popular longtime Red Tory Premier Bill Davis. This shift in policy proved to be unpopular. After 42 years of governing Ontario, the 1985 election reduced the Tories to a minority in the Legislature, with only four seats more than the opposition Liberals. The Tories won fewer votes over all than the Liberals. Miller attempted to forge an alliance with the NDP, as Bill Davis did during his minority terms (1975-1981), but this turned out not to be the case. The Liberals of David Peterson and the New Democrats of Bob Rae decided to form a coalition, ousting Frank Miller, and ending one of the longest political dynasties in Canadian history.
From the Big Blue Machine dynasty to the present (1943-2007), political parties in power in Ontario:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_History/Premiers_of_Ontario
Progressive Conservative: 50 years
Liberal: 10 years
New Democratic Party: 5 years
..if possible, sell valuable public resources and infrastructure, like Ontario Hydro, to private interests.
I think we should have gotten rid of Mike Harris before he could even get started on that one.
By the way, today, I like John Tory (former Bill Davis aide) more than Dalton McGuinty.
