The Bloc will always be the Bloc, they have Quebec independence in their mandate, yada yada yada. But over the past 5 years, they’ve embraced a broader view of their raison d’etre, saying they speak on behalf of “the Quebec consensus” and “defending the interests of Quebec” – often taking their cues from unanimous resolutions passed in the Quebec national assembly. I readily concede that this shift has been for political reasons.

But having made that shift from purely advocating sovereignty to defending the “Quebec consensus position regarding Quebec’s interests” in Ottawa, you have to then ask: what if Quebecers were to wake up one morning and arrive at a strong consensus that Quebec’s “best interests” are inextricably intertwined with the best interests of Canada as a whole? Would the Bloc not then be obliged to formally set aside sovereignty and wholly dedicate themselves to the “national interest” of Canada, as a means of defending the best interest of Quebec?

I admit I’m a radical optimist. I also live in Quebec, and my family and professional lives straddle the language thing on a daily basis, so maybe I’m too close to the project. But I think that the willingness of the Bloc to agree in writing to support a coalition government and an economic plan that is “good” for Quebec but not necessarily “advantageous” (and for the record, in my capacity as radical optimistic I reject the suggestion that Dion, Rae, Iggy, Layton, Broadbent are all stupid and/or power-hungry enough to agree to a deal that rewards Quebec and screws the rest of the country ,in the middle of a recession) is evidence that a “new” Quebec consensus regarding the intertwinining Quebecers’ and Canada’s best interests is actually possible, and that the Bloc was prepared to, at least for the moment, allow that emergent consensus to inform their conduct in Ottawa.

Obviously I can’t prove that any of this is on target- or that, even if it was true last week, it would be sustainable. But just for the sake of argument, say my interpretation is mostly correct. Now ask yourself: what have we done?

I am heartsick today because my gut tells me that I am right, and that what we may have done is to torch a bridge that’s taken a decade to build.

I agree with everything in your reply and yet I stand by what I wrote. I can’t tell if it’s my cognitive dissonance at work or if we’re actually not arguing.

Also, I would reject D by saying there are few, if any, MPs who are primarily concerned with the national interest. Two months ago, they were going door to door promising to be ” a strong voice for Brampton-Springdale” or wherever. They see their mandate as going up to Ottawa to grab as much of the loot as possible and then rush home with it. So they’re all Bloquistes, in that sense.

Ouch. Yes, I know not every Bloc voter is a separtist, but I assume every block MP is. I took the Bloc resurgence in the recent election as more of a protest vote against lacklustre Con/Lib alrternatives, rather than a show of newfound Bloc admiration. But hey, I’m not a Quebecer.

Without including that, you are missing a major piece of the logic.

With those who choose not to see a difference between “once in a while” and “always”, I will have to permanently disagree.

>since the right wing unified, the right wing itself has become the greatest driver of division in the country.

Since the right wing unified, the other parts have realized they don’t get a free pass to govern to suit themselves forever, and they had grown very comfortable that way. Politics became divisive as it dawned that the Big Prize (levers of government) could fall into other hands, and the left side has plenty of its own bitter spite. Most people approve of government with wide scope of powers while they control it, but not so much while their political foes do. The only length of Conservative majority rule – under any leader – satisfactory to some people is “none”, but that is not realistic or desirable.

The bigger the prize gets, the more divisive politics will get. Ideology is the ammunition, not the weapon.

What is he doing that is not in the interest of the party and voters he represents? I do not see a downside for Duceppe.

Which leader did you have in mind as not acting like an absolute idiot? I would say either all four are acting like idiots or Layton is the only reasonable one.

@ hazzard

Agree that probably the best solution in an ideal world would be a Tory/Grit grand coalition under someone other than Harper or Dion. It would make sense in a lot of ways. Which is why it won’t happen.

I could take or leave Dion. Actually, I’m perfectly happy to leave Dion and less happy on the taking front. I just see the recent rhetoric re: the Bloc as counterproductive. Yeah, they have separatist origins. But a lot of people vote for them because they think they will represent Quebec’s best interest. Yeah, in theory it would be great if everyone voted for the good of the country as a whole instead of their parochial concerns, but that isn’t really how politics works. I mean, Newfoundland didn’t vote for any Tories; Alberta didn’t vote for any Grits. In each case, it is largely because the parties they did vote for were the ones seen as best for the province. The Tories aren’t explcitly the Alberta Party and they have a lot of supporters throughout Canada, but a number of their policies are derived from the Western roots of Reform/Alliance. That comes at a cost elsewhere – e.g., Quebec, Ontario, and Atlantic Canada.

So, yeah, you can make an argument that Dion is being inconsistent. Though a lot has changed since 1998, notably the fact that the Bloc is no longer really campaigning on sovereignty, so I’m not entirely willing to cede the point re: Dion. But, at the end of the day, I don’t think that changes the fact that the Tories are basically throwing barrels of gasoline onto coals that had just about died out on their own. Now, maybe it will help them win enough votes in the West and in rural/suburban Ontario to get a majority next time. But it won’t help things on the unity front.

Fletch, welcome to democracy. The separatist party (or is it the sovereignist party?) is legitimate unless you want to suggest that the ballots in Quebec should be nul and void.

And if you took a moment to reflect as opposed to just parrot Giornio’s talking points, you’d realize that getting the “separatists” to agree to prop up a federal govt with no conditions for 18-months only strengthens the federation, not weaken it.

They are the ones who agreed to set aside separation. They are the ones who agreed to engage in federal policymaking.

If anyone is guilty of engaging in tactics that are benefitting the separatists, it is Harper. I’m now concerned about the impact of all this on Jean Charest’s hopes for a majority. Nothing like collectively insulting francophones to get Quebecers riled up.

You think that attacking the arts was bad?

Going for a beer instead… recommend the same for rest of the country

First, it’s invariably in the interest of Quebec to have a federal government that listens to and respects the voices of all Canadians (including all Quebecers), even if specific policies or decisions may not be good for Quebec.

Third, here’s a difference between a policy that’s “good for Quebec” and a policy that’s “advantageous for Quebec.” Confusion between the two is rampant.

Remind me – what a conservative principles again? Because every time a “conservative” gets power, they seem to act the same way and it’s not pretty.

My point was that since the right wing unified, the right wing itself has become the greatest driver of division in the country. Quebec separatists have faded into the background.

It’s a mirror image of the deep divisions we’ve seen south of the border.

That may change since Harper decided to use the BQ as a whipping boy – we’re already seeing Harper’s rhetoric being used to whip up fresh separatist sentiment. Even after everything I’ve seen, Harper has managed to shock me with the depths to which he will sink.

Something like being a little pregnant?

“Everywhere I went over the last two days people of all stripes were livid at the opposition and viewed this as an unequivocal power grab.”

You mean you actually went to the kitchen for your own beer refill?

I don’t suppose it occurred to you to ask any of these people why a minority government wouldn’t deliver the economic plan it promised in the midst of an economic crisis?

kody, you really need to get out of Calgary more often…

He’ll take credit for bringing home the booty, all the while opining aobut how the big deficits are bankrupting Quebecs future.

He will share no responsibility for the $30B deficit it goes over badly. After all, at Potter says, he’s not really a “member” of the coalition.

Best of all, the coalition will collapse on escalating demands by the Bloc, allowing him to claim vociferiously yet another historic rejection of Quebecs demands….Oh the humiliation!

He can easily accept the Bloq’s support. He can write a budget. If the Bloc supports it, then he moves on. Just like many times before.

Reminds me of the old joke with this punchline:

We’ve already established what you are (a prostitute) — now were simply arguing price.

I dunno Peter, maybe watching you be eaten alive by rabid badgers?

That statement right there shows how incredibly dense some people can be. Did it ever occur to you that the Bloc is in fact supported by federalists too? Do the math Steve M. If all those who voted for the Bloc were separatists at heart, why are the poll numbers so low for those in favour of separatism?

Perhaps one has to be from Quebec to know this but a great many Quebecers support the Bloc because they are viewed as a regional party that looks out for the interest of the province.

They are the ones that Harper has been insulting all week. Separatism was on its way out in Quebec and in a few days, Harper has managed to revive it!

Clearly he and Layton know what’s best for the economy, just as Duceppe knows what’s best for Quebec. I wouldn’t disparage most BQ members by calling them separatists. They are pragmatists.

My biggest complaint with Cons/Harper is that they rarely argue in conservative terms and they always back down when the opposition gets the vapours. We live in liberal country, yes, but a right wing lib country and the votes are there if you court them and explain your policies. Harris won two majority governments in Ontario, a very liberal province, by sticking to his message for years before/after he took power.

Harper isn’t advancing conservatism if he behaves likes its something to be embarrassed about, which is how he comes across to me. Cons are unmoored from their beliefs and wouldn’t be making all these mistakes if there was more focus on ideology and less on tactics/strategy.

Anyhow, Dion as an academic had a basic device to evaluate separatism based on three variables:
1. Fear (Quebec’s fear of assimilation)
2. Confidence (Quebec’s confidence that it could succeed on its own)
3. Rejection (a short term factor, like the reaction to Meech’s failure)

Let us evaluate on all three
1. No impact – this is a short-term arrangement and anyway the government can’t really affect this fear (the provincial government can, eg. bill 101).

2. Confidence – this is the killer. It gives the Bloc experience in a national government, but enough distance that they can avoid blame when things go down the tube. Moreover, it allows the Bloc to sew discord and convince Quebec and Canada that the country has become Italy and would be better served by splitting up.

3. Rejection – so you are Gilles Duceppe. How do you end the coalition (because its going to happen) without looking selfish. You give a demand that is in Quebec’s interest and not Canada’s that you know the NDP and Liberals cannot accept. You play that for all it is worth in the ensuing election (and use that as a platform to become leader of the PQ post-Marois).

Yes. Separatism is not black and white. A soft federalist would listen to Harper and be pissed off enough to vote for the BQ.

Where have the Cons insulted French Canadians? Everything I’ve read or seen shows the Cons blasting only the separtists. Do Quebecers who don’t vote BQ/PQ see that as a shot at all Quebec? Or is this just what the BQ/PQ wants us to believe?

And Kody, follow your own advice and ad some meaningful defence of your Conservative position instead of this childlike rambling about lefty media. Stop whining and start contributing otherwise go find a mirror and talk to the only person that seems to care about your drivel. I get enough dull repetition reading books to my 1 year old.