Evening Star

As punked showed in post 28, many are also union leaders, academics, activists, teachers, lawyers, artists,... Some have plenty of professional accomplishments and experience.

Fair point.

Have you looked at the qualifications of the new NDP MPs from QC, aside from the handful that the media likes to pick on?

What if I have reservations with both systems for this reason?

Everyone does realize that asymmetrical federalism and/or decentralization aren't the same as separatism, right? I don't support them but they are different things. I've never liked the Meech Lake or Charlottetown accords but I do actually believe that Mulroney was sincerely trying to weaken separatism by 'including' Quebec. Separatism is not a covert endeavour: It is a presence in QC provincial politics, which is the only context where it makes any sense for it to exist.

OK, if we agree on this, I actually share some of your broader concerns: Tbh, "asymmetrical federalism" has been NDP policy since 2005: www.pierreducasse.ca/IMG/pdf/Declaration_Sherbrooke_ENG_V2.pdf Bill 101 has been softened by court rulings and amendments over the years but I am still not a fan and see no reason why the federal government should embrace it. And that "winning conditions" line does have an ominous Mulroneyesque ring to it. If the NDP actually starts aggressively pursuing some of these ideas, that could be the quickest way to turn me into a Liberal voter. And, basically, this - the defence of federalism - is the one area where I could see an opening/need for a strong LPC to reassert itself, with the CPC supporting 'open federalism' and Quebec's 'nationhood'. However, the LPC hasn't really done much to advocate for this in a while, perhaps since the last thing they did for federalism turned out to be such a fiasco... For better or worse, though, there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for Trudeauvian centralism anymore so maybe this is just something we need to acknowledge and accept...? Btw, in terms of how they voted, the BQ practically functioned as the QC wing of the NDP much of the time anyway. (They certainly didn't accomplish anything for the cause of separatism!)

As best as I could make them out on one listen, these were his words: (Emphasis mine.) I am a staunch federalist but I also don't think separatism is dead because of the BQ's decimation in this election. The controversy seems to centre around the phrase "Sovereignty will be done in Quebec": Now, English is not this MP's first language and it comes through in his phrasing here. (That is awkwardly phrased, however you feel about the issue.) One way of interpreting it, which seems to be Charles Adler's take, is that Dusseault is making a proclamation that sovereignty WILL be achieved for Quebec one day (and this is a good thing). Another interpretation is that he is saying that the question of sovereignty needs to be DECIDED within Quebec and by Quebecers and that it is not an issue for a federal party to concern itself with. (And exactly how is the NDP supposed to treat Quebecers' desire for sovereignty if e.g. it is expressed with a "Oui" vote in a referendum? With disrespect??) However, at this moment, he is more concerned with building a federal government that works for Quebecers as well as other Canadians. The last sentence, in bold, seems to make it less ambiguous though: He is a federalist but he also respects sovereigntists (who are still common enough in QC) and the right of Quebecers to decide the question for themselves.

I'm probably in the minority but I do think a balance of some modest and progressive tax raises combined with spending cuts that were a little less harsh might have worked... I really can't say much for sure though. (I'm still working my way through Abel's macroeconomics textbook. )

Good point and, yes, that is among my major reservations with the CPC. Flaherty's stint in ON does not really inspire confidence in me either.

For the sake of argument, what do you think the consequences would have been if they had been slightly less ruthless about deficit reduction and left a little more money for health and education? Even if it meant a longer wait before we reached a budget surplus? Or even if we still had a slight deficit?

The only other alternative I could suggest is what the NDP were running on in the early 90s: an extra personal income tax bracket, a wealth tax, luxury tax, inheritance tax... Who knows if it would have worked? A carbon tax as well perhaps?

Somehow I suspect that the people criticizing Martin's cuts would complain even more if he (or someone) had raised taxes to balance the budget...

Never seemed all that outlandish to me, especially considering that she's going to be an Opposition backbencher. Besides, I have fond memories of Oliver's Pub.

My point is that the CPC and NDP also present a balance of both ideas. So advocating for a balance doesn't in and of itself say that much to me. I see no reason why the NDP should not be able to develop their platform and entrench and expand their support over the next 4-5 years, presenting a viable alternative to the CPC. They're a perfectly logical fit for Quebec. Not saying that the Liberals can never come back or anything. For the sake of argument, though, I'm a little hard-pressed to see where the need is for them right now, aside from being a voice for centralism (unless they were to become a truly fiscal conservative/social liberal party). Even the Liberals don't seem that excited about centralized federalism though. Maybe Justin Trudeau?

That might be because they don't really stand for much anymore. Rob Silver pretty much openly stated this in the G&M after the election. You can't really support a free market and also advocate for a bunch of new social programmes at the same time, honestly.

See, that doesn't sound that different from the CPC's stance to me. I'm sorry if I'm being difficult: It just seems that 'mushy middle' is hard to navigate when you're a third-place party rather than a 'natural governing party'. Funding programmes like national child care may well require an NDP level of taxation... I could perhaps see room for a free market party that is also socially liberal on issues like legalizing soft drugs or prostitution or euthanasia (although I wouldn't vote for it).

The Conservatives do still see a role for a social safety net and public health care, education, and infrastructure, perhaps not to the same degree as the NDP. The NDP still believes in a competitive market economy, though they're a little more interventionist and protectionist than the CPC. And unless you intervene enough in the market, via taxation, you can't afford the social safety net anyway. (The NDP could adopt the whole 'Family Pack' without sacrificing any of their principles.) I'm sure both parties would say they believe in So I'm still not completely clear on what this Liberal Party would have to offer. Could you give examples of specific policies that would be distinct from both the CPC and the NDP?

The CPC and NDP believe in most of those principles too, to varying degrees. It seems that something more specific is required. Perhaps there's room for a party that's closer to the CPC on economics but closer to the NDP on foreign policy and social issues...? The one place where I can see an opening for the Liberals to reassert themselves is as a voice for strong, centralized federalism. The NDP, at least on paper, supports 'asymmetrical federalism' and the CPC tend to lean towards decentralization. We'll have to see how the two parties evolve over the next 4-5 years.

Yeah, I voted NDP but I have a real problem with trying to divide a multi-party system into two camps that way. Of course, we could try it: If the Liberals and NDP really are similar left-wing parties, it should be easy for them to unite under the banner of the party that has greater representation in the House now. Any bets on how many Liberals are going to go for this...? I'm totally open to electoral reform, on the other hand.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-voters-elected-the-ndps-vegas-girl-anyway/article2010885/ And how many other NDP MPs fit this description? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/in-the-commons-the-kids-are-alright/article2011610/

Sometimes I still laugh out loud about this.

Harper's gait is kind of awkward. I notice it because mine is too.

Yeah, this comparison seems so weird for this reason. I had no idea Justin Trudeau was an icon to leftist Catholic Canadians!

None of these quotes indicates someone who is interested in actively promoting Quebec separatism at the moment: If anything, they seem like relatively 'centrist' positions by Quebec standards.

But if you agree with that, it doesn't seem like you can complain about an individual MP being young or unilingual or vacationing in Vegas during the campaign or... You can't have it both ways. I realize you weren't doing that, cybercoma. But this is the crux of my issue with the tone of this whole discussion. If you think individual candidates are important, then the voters had the opportunity to know who their NDP candidate was and they still voted for her. (It was no secret that she was on vacation during the campaign, for example.) If you think the party brand is more important, then the voters should be satisfied: They voted for an NDP member and they got one. It's fair enough to look into her nomination papers and see if something unethical happened but either way, she seems to have been democratically chosen by her constituents.