Canadian Politics Thread

Pat Martin's speech is pretty epic.

"what's the name of our old party?" lol :/

If the NDP can keep this up all weekend, making well-written on-topic speeches and not just filibustering, I'll be impressed.

Jack Layton has more cancer and is stepping down for a while. He didn't look good at his press conference today.

Yeah, he was looking rough from the pictures I saw. I hope he has a speedy recovery.

meanwhile, Harper is using Google+ to post pictures of kittens.

So the new interim NDP leader is a separatist. Funny stuff. Apparently the NDP don't bother to vet their candidates before allowing them to run on the party ticket or before handpicking them to be leader of the party.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/08/02/pol-turmel-bloc-quebecois.html

Not saying I'm thrilled about this but I do think that for many left/labour people in Quebec, your earlier comments are very relevant:

I could imagine a situation where I would vote for the BQ if I lived in Quebec even though I'm not a separatist. I know I'm not the only one on this board who admires the BQ for being socially progressive, and I happen to like Duceppe as a leader.

My impression was that, especially for QS voters, the sovereigntist aspect of the party's platform came second to their socialist policies on other issues (especially considering the alternatives in QC provincial politics).

Having said that, sovereigntist parties are definitely still sovereigntist parties. It's poor optics at best and potentially more dubious than that, while I do wonder if it might have seemed less clear-cut to a prominent QC labour leader. The strongest argument the NDP/Turmel could make now is that her resignation from QS and full acceptance of NDP leadership shows that whatever her affiliations have been, she is a committed federalist now.

I always thought it was a little questionable to choose a rookie MP as leader, though, despite her union leadership credentials and despite the fact that she is just an interim leader. There are NDP MPs who have served, and served well, for a long time, who are being overlooked.

It does seem like the Liberals are in a good position to benefit.

is this really a big deal? sometimes I don't understand the rest of Canada

Are you asking if separatism is a big deal for people in English Canada??

so being a member of the Bloc Quebecois at one point in your life means you're a separatist forever?

When "one point in your life" consists of four years that ended this January, and when you're still a member of a sovereigntist provincial party, that does tend to raise people's suspicions.

I realize that there are many people in Quebec who vote BQ/PQ/QS in elections because of their policies on social or economic issues but would also vote "Non" if a referendum came up. I'm not sure that most people in English Canada realize that (or care if they do). Separatism/sovereigntism trump the other issues for many people, and I can understand why.

The NDP raise good points though: http://www.ndp.ca/press/ndp-reality-check-glass-houses

Someone on Babble pointed out the ties between the Conservatives' QC caucus and the ADQ, who were on the "Oui" side in 1995.

I don't know, to me it seems pretty obvious that just due to the fact that she decided to run for the NDP in the last election pretty much means she is no longer a separatist, if she ever was one.

as far as being a member of QS goes, Quebec independence seems like a pretty minor point in their party platform and I doubt that is the main reason anybody votes for them.

as far as being a member of QS goes, Quebec independence seems like a pretty minor point in their party platform

I realize that this makes sense in Quebec and I get why. However, in the rest of Canada, the idea of Quebec independence being a "minor point" of a party platform is harder for people to get their heads around ("We stand for labour rights, social democracy, and liberal policies on social issues. Oh, by the way, we'd also be OK with, you know, splitting up the country. Just a minor detail in our platform.")

Heh, it would be kind of amazing if Turmel said something like "I believe that the rights of working people are more important than any question concerning national boundaries." Not necessarily a great political move but still kind of amazing.

I don't know, to me it seems pretty obvious that just due to the fact that she decided to run for the NDP in the last election pretty much means she is no longer a separatist, if she ever was one.

I do tend to agree. From the point of view of optics, though, there has been a suspicion ever since the last election that the NDP has basically become infiltrated by sovereigntists who are now exploiting the party to advance a Quebec-first agenda, who don't really care about the country as a whole.

I don't know, to me it seems pretty obvious that just due to the fact that she decided to run for the NDP in the last election pretty much means she is no longer a separatist, if she ever was one.

This isn't like changing your mind about liking a movie, where you can do an about face and your previous opinions don't count. Politicians stake their careers (and credibility) on supporting and working for particular parties, you're not supposed to change your views like you change your socks -- especially (x10) if you're the party leader. More importantly, a politician lives or dies by their track record, and everything they've done, good or bad, is fair game (again, x10 if you're the party leader). Is Bob Rae's record as premier of Ontario no longer relevant? After all, he's changed parties and doesn't believe the same things he believed then.

I'll also never believe that NDP thinking went along the lines of "hey, let's pick the rookie former separatist MP as the interim leader, her past might raise some red flags but we can spin that tricky negative into a positive and get in some cool zings about glass houses and other MPs that have switched parties (whose situations aren't comparable to this)." I think I'll go with the more straightforward explanation -- Layton doesn't know shit about most of his caucus, most of whom he couldn't pick out of a lineup three months ago, and the NDP fucked up.

But politicians switching parties isn't really uncommon. Plus she was a member of the NDP at the same time as she was a member of the Bloc, so this isn't even really switching parties at all. Lots of people in Quebec who were sympathetic to the NDP voted for the Bloc in past elections because at the time the NDP had no chance of winning.

Plus she was a member of the NDP at the same time as she was a member of the Bloc

Is this true? I know she was deeply involved with the NDP in the 90s but I didn't know she was actually a member of both parties at the same time, recently. Seems curious that she would have simultaneously been a member of two federal parties that compete with each other.

Lots of people in Quebec who were sympathetic to the NDP voted for the Bloc in past elections because at the time the NDP had no chance of winning.

I used a similar argument earlier but we do have to admit that strategically voting for a party is not exactly the same as being a paid member and donating to the party.

Her claim that she only joined the BQ to support a friend and didn't vote for them is some "never inhaled" shit.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/08/03/turmel-and-the-bloc-er-so-what/

this article basically sums up the point I'm trying to make about why none of this really matters

Re: the Mcleans article, I couldn't think of a less convincing argument if I tried, you can drive a truck through his "logic". His main point is that separatism isn't the domain of any one party, rather, it's more a matter of right vs left, i.e. any leftist party will receive some separatist support. And nobody doubts that a lot of separatists and former BQ voters supported the NDP in the election. So how does being a member of the NDP preclude supporting separatism?

There's no stigma attached to being a separatist and supporting a leftist party in Quebec, so how do we know where Turmel stands? The definitive proof is supposedly this: she tore up her BQ membership card, which proves ... absolutely nothing. On one hand, you have an MP who was actively involved on the separatist side for years before migrating to a "leftist" party that will be accepting of separatism, because according to Patriquin, that's how Quebec politics works. On the other hand, she ripped up a card. Which is more representative of her beliefs?

Her claim that she only joined the BQ to support a friend and didn't vote for them is some "never inhaled" shit.

Totally. If she wasn't a separatist and only joined the BQ because their leftist politics overlapped with her own, then why not just say so? If she's lying then it's "I did not inhale", and if she's somehow telling the truth then she's blown her first test on what not to say or do in politics. Either way, Turmel and the NDP come off looking like amateurs.

His main point is that separatism isn't the domain of any one party, rather, it's more a matter of right vs left, i.e. any leftist party will receive some separatist support.

I think his point is the reverse of this, actually: Since the Trudeau era, and prior to the Orange Surge, the only real left-wing options in Quebec have all been sovereigntist/separatist parties. So left-leaning voters may have generally voted for these parties even if they didn't support separatism. He expands a little in his other linked opinion piece: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/04/getting-something-right/

none of this really matters

xpost That's what I said ... people voted for separatist parties because they agreed with their left-wing politics, but not necessarily their separatist politics. I agree with that, but OTOH, this idea that "there were no other left-wing options prior to the Orange Surge" is pure fiction because the NDP have been around for 50 years. The option was always there and Quebecers chose not to support them. So this happy merger of left-wing and separatist voters, which Patriquin claims is normal, isn't as simple as he's making it out to be. And why doesn't this apply to Quebec provincial politics too?

In the long run none of this really matters but even I'm shocked at the NDP's complete ineptitude when it comes to basic maxims of politics. Maybe Quebecers don't care, but they had to know how this would be viewed in the rest of Canada, particularly in Ontario (where they need to pick up votes if they want to form a government someday). And the Harper Tories will have a field day with this -- "the leader of the opposition is a separatist" is the kind of smear campaign they could only dream about, and the NDP have simply handed it to them on a platter.

people voted for separatist parties because they agreed with their left-wing politics, but not necessarily their separatist politics.

OK, I misunderstood you.

I agree with that, but OTOH, this idea that "there were no other left-wing options prior to the Orange Surge" is pure fiction because the NDP have been around for 50 years. The option was always there and Quebecers chose not to support them.

Yeah, this was a constant source of frustration for the NDP iirc.

So this happy merger of left-wing and separatist voters, which Patriquin claims is normal, isn't as simple as he's making it out to be. And why doesn't this apply to Quebec provincial politics too?

Doesn't it? The PQ and QS are both social democratic parties with major union support in the PQ's case. The 'Quebec model', largely built by the PQ, as Patriquin notes, is not that different from the NDP's vision for the country afaik. I guess the right-wing ADQ, who were separatists in 1995 but became 'renewed federalists', might complicate things a little...

In the long run none of this really matters but even I'm shocked at the NDP's complete ineptitude when it comes to basic maxims of politics. Maybe Quebecers don't care, but they had to know how this would be viewed in the rest of Canada, particularly in Ontario (where they need to pick up votes if they want to form a government someday). And the Harper Tories will have a field day with this -- "the leader of the opposition is a separatist" is the kind of smear campaign they could only dream about, and the NDP have simply handed it to them on a platter.

Yeah, the politics of it were largely what concerned me too.

Laying the smackdown on the NDP's stance on "voting fairness":

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1041601--voting-fairness-is-not-divisive

I am shocked, shocked I say that the NDP would stoop to this once the shoe was on the other foot.

Sad news, Jack Layton dies at 61: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/opposition-leader-jack-layton-dead-at-61/article2137070/

oh my god, Jack Layton. this is so sad, i am so sad, in both personal and political ways.
xp with this is the thread where we curse cancer :( :(

Just read the news: very sad, much quicker than I ever would have expected.

This is so, so upsetting. Totally echoing rrrobyn right now :(

i know he was sick but i had no idea...
very sad. RIP

He seemed really sick but I definitely didn't expect this. RIP.

Definitely didn't expect this either. Likewise, I knew he was sick, but had no idea, with the exception of fairly jarring newspaper photo I saw a few weeks ago where he looked emaciated.

Anyways, very sad news (that this happened months after becoming official opposition is kind of adding insult to injury), may he rest in peace.

same here. i was surprised when i saw that photo too. he looked so healthy and full of life (except for the cane) during the last campaign.

Completely shattered by this news. RIP Jack

^

CBC just read his letter in full:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Jack+Layton+final+message/5289212/story.html

Thinking about the last election, today's coverage, all the goodwill, hard to imagine a more graceful exit.

that's amazing, that he took the time to write it, that it must have been so heartbreaking to do, and how much he meant it, and just, damn.

think i'll head over to City Hall at 4.

Fuck, I just got the news. Did not expect this at all. So crushing. RIP.

that's amazing, that he took the time to write it, that it must have been so heartbreaking to do, and how much he meant it, and just, damn.

I can only echo this.

Unquestionably heartbreaking.

Just got back from city hall. Cute posters of Jack's high school photo, and others with the final words of his last letter: "My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world."

It kind of blows my mind when you consider Jack's record. He's been on the progressive side of the issue for his entire career in this way that in retrospect seems precognitive.

Montrealers - there's a vigil in Parc Mont Royal at 8 tonight being organized by NPD Québec right by the statue of Cartier.

And yeah, that letter. I can't even imagine having the strength and character to write something like that, let alone one as comforting, eloquent and powerful as what he wrote.

I mean - a paragraph encouraging fellow Canadians with cancer to remain optimistic and not lose hope because of his prognosis? What an astounding display of empathy above and beyond the call of duty.

That part nearly made me lose it when I read it. What a brave man he was. RIP Jack.