They are just going to be doing the same thing with the Liberal/NDP minority government as they were doing with the previous Conservative minority government. What’s the issue, then? Let’s face it, Harper has shot himself in the foot by bringing in some significant changes (which he did NOT campaign on) and which were guaranteed to massively piss off all the other parties, and is now trying to divert the blame to everyone else for his mistake.
Frankly, I don’t see this as a sleazy backroom deal by the Liberals/NDP, but an extremely partisan and extremely stupid move on the part of the Conservatives which has finally forced the Opposition to develop some backbone.
As to why Quebeckers keep electing the BQ, in my opinion it’s because it’s the only party which combines strong support for provincial power AND a general left-wing take on other issues more than because it’s separatist. The Conservatives support provincial power but are too right-wing for most voters in Quebec, while the Liberals and NDP are too federalist for the voters who support the BQ.
I find it unpleasant, but not unacceptable, that a Federal Government be propped up by a party that is existant in only one province. This isn’t the first time, and likely won’t be the last; given politics of this country, especially of late.
In this particular case, I view the situation as choosing between the lesser of evils if you will.
I don’t have any problem with it at all… I much prefer the BQ over the Conservatives - I feel their views are closer to mine - even though I don’t even live in Quebec. i.e. -
The BQ has been a lot more supportive of Gay and Lesbian rights than Harper and his cronies ever has. If Harper had had his majority when the Government voted on marriage, I have no doubt that they would have voted against it…
I guess Quebecers are voting in BQ members because they think they’re representing their interests. Isn’t that why everyone votes for a party or MP?
Mathematically, that doesn’t work out. The vote was a free vote, and many Conservatives voted not to re-table the debate. (It wasn’t even a vote on gay marriage. It was a vote on whether or not to start the process of introducing a bill on gay marriage.) Even with a reasonable majority it would have been voted down.
Anyway, I respectfully submit that you’re not fully aware of the facts. The vote was clearly meant to be lost, engineered to ensure there wasn’t any chance at all the gay marriage issue would be reopened.
I don’t believe in or support much of anything that the Bloc says or does. Do they have the right to be there YES! They were voted into this position by citizens of this country who have a right for there collective voices to be heard, they may be a minority but I don’t believe there is any minority that should not be heard or represented in our “democracy”.
What veto power will the “separatists” have, anyway? Are they going to prevent bad legislation from going through? The Conservatives should be glad. Are they going to vote against good legislation? Surely the Conservatives wouldn’t vote against good legislation.
If a bill’s good for the country, are the Conservatives going to vote against it out of petty partisanship? The other three parties seem willing to work together. Why can’t Stephen Harper play along?
Some of these points have already been addressed, but here’s my opinions:
(1) Is it unacceptable to you to have the BQ (as opposed to any other opposition party) in a formalized alliance with the government, and why or why not?
It is unacceptable to me to think they don’t have the right to form part of the government, whether as part of the ruling party or as part of the opposition. To disagree with this is to negate the right to representation of 49 ridings.
(2) What do you think of the BQ’s record in opposition as compared to other opposition parties over the last 18 years (Duceppe was first elected as the 1st BQ MPin 1990)?
I don’t have much to say here. I was too young when the Bloc formed “her Majesty’s loyal opposition” to really remember what they did. More recently, I believe that Duceppe’s questions in the house, and the party’s statements outside it, have been relevant and to the point.
(3) I guess a 3rd question would be, why do you think Quebecers choose to keep re-electing the BQ to Parliament even though it looks like the separatist dream is unlikely to be fulfilled any time soon?
I voted for the Bloc because I support their positions on the environment, the economy, and human rights. I don’t feel that separation/sovereignty is anywhere high on their list of priorities right now. Most of all, I believe that the Bloc does a good job of reminding the federal government of its responsibilities and limitations. For example, in the French-language debate preceding this election, Duceppe called for more stringent federal food inspection and better support to natives living on reservations. IIRC (sorry, don’t have a cite right now), the Bloc was (in my opinion, rightly) opposed to the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation because education is a provincial responsibility. I believe that other parties are neglecting issues like these, so I support the Bloc. I don’t believe that these issues are irrelevant to the rest of Canada either.
1 - I accept the BQ’s legal right to be part of a governing coalition but do find it not quite kosher on an emotional level. Can’t stretch enough to call it immoral.
2 - I was not really aware of the BQ’s effectiveness as an opposition party, which is why I asked this question. The gestalt I’d picked up from the media was they were advocating for Quebec’s interests but I had no sense of how successful or not they had been.
3 - I really couldn’t figure this one out, as naive as that sounds. My husband keeps talking about how left-wing Quebec society is but it didn’t really sink in why that would mean Quebecers’ couldn’t vote for the Conservatives if they were unhappy with the Liberals.
Surely the NDP and Liberals wouldn’t vote against good legislation? What is wrong with expecting political parties to raise their own funds without government aid? What is wrong with not spending huge gobs of money on ‘saving’ the economy when the economy isn’t really in trouble in Canada? Yet, that is what they were going to do by bringing down the conservatives. I guess it depends on where you stand as to who is doing the right thing, isn’t it?
Wow, that’s not a really convincing argument. Arts cuts are not censorship to anyone who speaks high school-level English or has even a tiny amount of intelligence and integrity. It’s logically equivalent to say that the government is taking away my liberty if they don’t buy me a car.
But as to the policy, let me play devil’s advocate. Why should various people and businesses be taxed to give free money to one particular type of business? If stage and screen productions get millions layered on millions of dollars, where’s the cut for my business? I work with a lot of machine shops. Do you know how much government aid they get? None. They need to either turn a profit or go belly up. Why are they not deserving of those millions of dollars, but someone putting on a play is?
This applies to lots of other industries, of course. The NDP is practically springing a boner to give billions to a bunch of American automobile companies who have demonstrated almost mind-boggling levels of incompetence; the Liberals and Conservatives aren’t exactly holding back the checks either, to be fair. Meanwhile, any number of businesses contract or go under because they aren’t in industries that are politically convenient for the politicians to prop up. Who’s going to save the local hair salon if it falls on rough times? Nobody.
The point is that Quebecers are very preoccupied with culture and, specifically, arts funding - both because culture is extremely important to us and because we have a large culture industry.
Harper might have gotten away with it if he had presented it in the guise of overall belt-tightening rather than taking pot-shots at artists at glittering galas and how regular people don’t care about the arts, or trying to claim that a bunch of money for the Vancouver Olympics torch relay is as good as funding for the fine arts and the culture industry.
In any event, regardless of what you may think about it, RickJay, he grossly misread (or didn’t care) how that would play in Quebec; it was universally shellacked, and the Bloc rode it to shut out his attempts to expand in the province (it helped us, as well).
Visually to Western Canada (and some sectors of the rest of Canada) it’s horrible. The Bloc exists to break up Canada. Whether they actually are active in pursuing that right now is irrelevant to most folks outside of Quebec. I know they have morphed into more than that to Quebeckers, but seperatism/nationalism is their raison d’etre, no?
Yes, but we’re supposed to suck it up and not say anything because we might offend someone in Quebec. Plus we’re rednecks and our opinion doesn’t count, in any case.
Because the grant of x per vote was brought in when donations from unions and corporations were prohibited. Yes, if everybody gave even a meagre amount of to the party of their choice then there wouldn’t be a problem, but most people don’t. It seems to me that the opposition parties would haven’t got their knickers quite so badly in a twist if other means of getting funding (e.g. allowing union and corporate donations) were allowed.
We’re not the ones who’ve said your representatives shouldn’t be able to participate in government. How did you manage to get to this? Because we haven’t fallen over ourselves to agree with everything you say?
And yet, people who support the conservatives manage to pony up when the hat comes round. Why are other people so cheap when it comes to the parties they support?
In case you missed it, none of the other parties are for the break up of Canada. Even though I think the NDP are a bunch of chuckle-headed buffoons, I know they want what they think is best for Canada (well, as much as any politician is capable of once he gets past his own self interest). What upsets a lot of people is that they expect the political party they vote for should work for the good of the country. It bothers them when those parties agree to work with people whose purpose is to break up the country. Well, it bothers some of us at least. Apparently, those who actually support the Niberals appear to think it is okay.
Speaking as a guy in between (Ontario) there’s no doubt that this is the feeling Westerners get. The political sensibility that seems to be advocated by the media and everyone in the Ottawa Valley is that you’re not allowed to say anything that could conceivably be construed as criticism of Quebec, even if it has to be twisted around quite a lot to claim it is. Such things are “provocations” or “insults” or “bigotry.” On the other hand, calling Albertans “rednecks” or generally insulting anyone who votes Conservative - which means a much higher percentage of people between Ontario and BC than anyone else - is okay. I’m in the province both sides love to hate, so I’ve no reason to lie about this; it’s a tendency that’s remarkably obvious.
The old cry that “The West Wants In” was a very reasonable thing; Western Canada has been shafted for quite some time and it’s going to become a problem for national unity if allowed to fester. When the NDP announced during the election campaign that they would, if elected, shut down all new oil sands work and cost thousands of jobs in Alberta and Saskatchewan, hardly anyone in Quebec or Ontario batted an eye. But suggest that we shouldn’t give big time handouts to automakers in Ontario and Quebec and all hell breaks loose. It’s a provocation!
Look at your own post. Nobody here has said Quebec representatives shouldn’t be able to participate in government. You just made that up - I think you did it unconsciously, but there it is. You’re taking the positions of people who disagree with the BQ and twisting it into something it is not. People have written that they think it’s wrong for a government to sign a deal with a separatist party, but haven’t said it should be disallowed or made illegal. In fact, in the various threads we have on the political crisis, the other side of this debate has often gone to great pains in these threads to specify that it IS legal and that parties should be permitted to make whatever such deals they want. They just disagree with this deal, think it’s wrong for Canada. If you told me you were opposed to the Tory plan on a certain issue - say, corporate tax cuts - wouldn’t it be rather dishonest of me to say “Helen’s Eidolon believes the government shouldn’t be allowed to cut taxes”? It’d be a complete fabrication; you might think the government should not cut those taxes, but you’re not saying the government of the day shouldn’t be ABLE to set tax policy.
Indeed, two nights ago on CBC - our national broadcaster, paid for with my tax dollars - a CBC commentator as much as said that Stephen Harper was Hitler, saying that proroguation was equivalent to the Nazis burning the Reichstag. If someone said Gilles Duceppe was Jefferson Davis there’d be a shitstorm the likes of which you’d never seen.