Harper's move on the Quebec Nation
When I heard this morning before heading off to work, that the Bloc Quebecois had brought forward a motion asking the house to recognize Quebec as a nation, I know this would be a disaster for both the Conservatives and Liberals as this is a divisive issue in both parties. Therefore, I do agree with Harper's statements that Quebec is a nation in the sociological sense, but not political sense, which interestingly enough is what Stephane Dion had earlier said despite voting against the Liberal Party of Canada Quebec Wing motion. I think this is a divisive issue that only seeks to divide Canadians much as the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord did so it is best to stay away from this topic and focus on issues that unite Canadians. But being backed into a corner, I will admit it is the right moment. Ironically enough Brandon who is a big Harper backer disagrees with him here while I agree on this issue.
As for its effect, it throws Michael Ignatieff a lifeline and I almost wonder if that is what Harper wanted since due to his gaffe proneness he might figure he is the easiest to beat. Also his falling numbers in Quebec mean he could lose all 10 seats, so this might have been his last ditch to try and shore up support in Quebec. I think the Liberals handled the issue right too. I am pleased the Liberals not just on this issue, but on other ones have been willing to support the Conservatives when right, but oppose them when wrong. It gives them more credibility than just blind partisanship.
As for its effect, it throws Michael Ignatieff a lifeline and I almost wonder if that is what Harper wanted since due to his gaffe proneness he might figure he is the easiest to beat. Also his falling numbers in Quebec mean he could lose all 10 seats, so this might have been his last ditch to try and shore up support in Quebec. I think the Liberals handled the issue right too. I am pleased the Liberals not just on this issue, but on other ones have been willing to support the Conservatives when right, but oppose them when wrong. It gives them more credibility than just blind partisanship.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 7:03 PM
16 Comments:
Mr. Harper did both Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberal Party a favour by proposing this motion.
He has taken the sting out of the Liberal motion and pretty much made the debate at the convention an afterthought instead of a defining issue.
Of course, if the Liberals then vote against the motion at the convention they will have proven themselves too stupid to govern.
I seriously doubt the Harper motion will help him in Quebec. The Liberal motion has been getting alot of play in the Quebec media so this motion will be viewed by many as him just trying to catch up.
I doubt it will help Harper a lot, I was more thinking it might stop the drop. Lets remember he got 25% last election, and now is at 12% in Quebec, so he has a long ways to go just to get back to January levels.
As for what the Liberals should do, it probably would make sense to vote for it, but we might want to amend the motion since I think the motion doesn't make reference to a united Canada.
Certainly the Liberal motion has been getting a lot of media attention, but so far only Ignatieff has been proposing it. Rae, Kennedy, and Dion were initially opposed and it is far from a guarantee Iggy will win.
Therefore, I do agree with Harper's statements that Quebec is a nation in the sociological sense, but not political sense, which interestingly enough is what Stephane Dion had earlier said despite voting against the Liberal Party of Canada Quebec Wing motion.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but the problem is that the position the PM outlined in his speech is not reflected in the motion itself.
The motion doesn't doesn't say "nation in a sociological sense." It simply says "nation." Yes, nation "within a united Canada," but that Quebec is "within a united Canada" at the present time. That phrase only states the obvious.
As Paul Wells put it: "It is very sweet that Stephen Harper prefers that the Quebec nation exist only within a united Canada. That's really swell of him to say so. But if the Quebec nation ever left Canada, would it cease to be a nation? Then the motion Stephen Harper presented in the Commons today is only wishful thinking."
If the House of Commons wants to simply recognize the sociological distinctness of Quebec, fine. It already did that by calling it a "distinct-society" anyway.
But to do it in this manner is nothing short of dangerous.
Well Miles, Uncle B. can't steer clear on this, especially as we agree.
The PM quite cleverly, I think, worded the motion to accept that Quebecois are a nation within Canada. Note, the motion refers to the people, which is what french-speakers say is meant by nation.
I believe this is also vastly superior to the Ignatieff mess, in which the Liberals appear to be voting too on whether to recognize Quebec's "territorial integrity," a point very much at odds with any federalist notion, not to mention Quebec's First Nation, er nation.
The right thing to have done, I think - even if it throws a lifeline to the afforementioned and most undeserving Igantieff and his Liberal Party.
Bob
Davidondivad - This is largely symbolic so I don't think a second Reform movement will happen over this alone. Rather it would happen if Harper is continuously seen as pandering to Quebec. As for Alberta separation, I hope it never happens, but if our politicians continue to play on highly divisive issues along regional lines it might someday happen where one part separates. I hope it doesn't and think that is why we should stay away from divisive issues.
Brandon - I think you are also right and perhaps the motion should have said the sociological sense although saying it is a nation within a united Canada pretty much rules out it being in the political sense, which is the only other definition.
Anonymous - I fully agree. I think Harper wanted to avoid the issue, but when pushed into a box, it was his best option. I don't normally agree with Harper, but I think he made the right decision here.
I do not think it will stop Mr. Harper's slide in Quebec.
With the ongoing war in Afghanistan, the "Clean Air Act" and the upcoming motion on same sex marriage Quebecers will be reminded alot over the next months why they do not support this government.
davidvondivad:
I have never bought into the whole notion that the Conservative Party is really united anyway so I agree that this move could have some real implications for the unity of that party going forward.
Ironic really. This motion could lead to greater national unity but it could also plant the seeds of discord and disunity within the Conservative Party.
As a Liberal that would be the best of both worlds.
I do not think it will stop Mr. Harper's slide in Quebec.
With the ongoing war in Afghanistan, the "Clean Air Act" and the upcoming motion on same sex marriage Quebecers will be reminded alot over the next months why they do not support this government.
You are right those issues are very unpopular in Quebec, but considering the Tories are at 12%, I don't know how much lower they can go considering there still are some right wingers in Quebec, although not as many as elsewhere. Those issues will at least ensure they lose rather than gain seats in the next election. Still Quebec is quite unpredictable so I don't want to make any predictions yet, but if I had to bet on what the Tories would get in the next election in Quebec, I would bet they would win fewer seats.
I have never bought into the whole notion that the Conservative Party is really united anyway so I agree that this move could have some real implications for the unity of that party going forward.
Conservatives have always been an uneasy coalition between moderates and ideologues. During the 90s the Ideologues went to the Reform Party and the moderates stayed with the Progressive Conservatives. Since Harper is more of an ideologue rather than moderate, I suspect he will continue to push moderates away, while the ideologues will only accept working with the moderates after losing several elections in a row and after they get the message Canadians don't share their values.
With the ongoing war in Afghanistan, the "Clean Air Act" and the upcoming motion on same sex marriage Quebecers will be reminded alot over the next months why they do not support this government.
At the same time, however, one could contend it was this kind of stance that got the Conservatives 10 seats in Quebec last election. The Tories may not surge in the polls from this, though it won't hurt them. I'd say look for them to go up about 2-3% in the polls in Quebec.
The biggest opponents to this, will be in the West. However, seeing as a) the West is conservative for the most part (exclusing lower mainland and island BC), and b) all three federalist parties support the motion, unless someone breaks away and starts another Reform Party, Tory support in the West will remain solid.
The Tories might gain some ground in Ontario, who have been often supportive of such measures; thus, swing voters may go back to the Conservatives again, causing a slight bump in the polls.
The Maritimes, heavily Liberal, will remain unchanged.
So, basically, the Tories should go up in the polls, thanks to mild increases in Ontario in Quebec; however, I wouldn't expect it to be by a very large margin by any means, something along the lines of 3-5%.
I would generally be inclined to agree with BC Tory. Alberta is a solid Conservative bastion while the BC Interior, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba could only be in jeopardy if the NDP and Liberal voters unite behind one party to knock off the Tories. As for Ontario, it could actually hurt them as Ontarioans are strong supporters of a centralized government and tend to the least interested in recognizing any given group. In Atlantic Canada, surprisingly most polls show the Tories up from last election (although largely due to a small sample). Besides Atlantic Canadians disliked Harper all along so all he has to do is not be as bad as they feared to gain seats there. Off course most Tories are Red Tories there so he could also lose seats there as well.
Tory support in the West will remain solid.
On the contrary, in the ridings our side won by close margins, it wouldn't take that many Tory voters staying home on Election Day to lose.
Miles could probably name them by rote.
And those handful of seats could conceivably make the difference between opposition and government.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm still fully behind Harper and will do whatever I can to get him re-elected.
But to just assume that there will be no electoral consequences for this would be a big mistake.
On the contrary, in the ridings our side won by close margins, it wouldn't take that many Tory voters staying home on Election Day to lose.
Miles could probably name them by rote.
And those handful of seats could conceivably make the difference between opposition and government.
But, at the same time, don't you believe that those people, in an effort to prevent the Liberals from getting back into power, would hold their nose and vote Conservative as the "lesser of two evils", as it were? Make no mistake, when it comes down to the Conservatives and Liberals, I think we both know who these right-wing Western populists would rather cast their ballot for.
I think Brandon might be right here. In Alberta, there weren't very many close ridings so it probably wouldn't make a difference, but in British Columbia it could. For example in Fleetwood-Port Kells, the Tories only won by 800 votes, so ignoring people's possible dissatisfaction of Harper elsewhere, it wouldn't take much to swing that one over to the Liberals.
Make no mistake, when it comes down to the Conservatives and Liberals, I think we both know who these right-wing Western populists would rather cast their ballot for.
Will they vote for Liberals? Of course not.
But since 2004, the newly formed Tories have lost tons of BC votes that used to go to the CA and the Reform Party. That is precisely why we've cumulatively lost 10 seats here over the last two elections.
And not only will this keep the voters that left from coming back, I guarantee that it will prompt at least some current Tory voters to stay home.
And rest assured, in some ridings that WILL make the difference between winning and losing.
Brandon - I think hits the point right on the nail about its possible future effects, although I think some Tory losses in BC were inevitable. The Canadian Alliance got 49% in BC in 2000, which is the highest any right wing party in BC history at a federal level has ever achieved, so they could really only go in one direction. Also much of their support was due to protest votes from the NDP and the fact many NDP voters simply stayed home in 2000 due to their disgust at the provincial NDP. Once the provincial NDP was turfed in 2001, some of the traditional NDP votes who went Reform in the 90s were bound to return.
Besides regardless of what political affiliation I was I think it is probably a good thing conservative support in Ontario and BC is roughly equal now since a highly divided country along regional lines is not a good thing.
I really do not see a net gain or loss for any party as a result of this issue.
Everybody seems to be on the same page and this is not the first time this issue has come up. For the most part history has shown that it does not cause great shifts in party support.
The one exception of course is Brian Mulroney but there was alot more at play in that situation than his handling of the Quebec file.
Ottlib - I doubt it will cause a big shift on its own, however it could affect some fence sitters. In the case of the West, some people who are somewhat disappointed with the Tories but not enough to switch, this might be enough for them to switch. Likewise in Quebec, it could affect those who were thinking of not voting Tory again, but still weren't sure. However those in Quebec, who are angry at Harper and regret voting for him won't switch over this.
Post a Comment
<< Home