Will a Conservative Majority make the Bloc Irrelevant?

[Keepitsimple]

With the Conservatives showing so much strength in Ontario and BC, it's possible - maybe even probable the way things are going - that they could win a majority with no significant representation in Quebec. Some pundits would have us believe that this would be bad for National Unity. I disagree.

In general, Bloc supporters vote for one of two reasons - they are outright separatists and will not vote for a federalist party or....they feel that a vote for a federalist party will "dilute" their power because federalist parties decide what's best for Canada - and that might not always be what's best for Quebec....so they vote for the Bloc because that's ALL they care about - Quebec.

In these days of minority government, the Bloc is a major factor. They are a barrier to gaining a majority and they can influence government legislation because minority governments need their support.

If the Conservatives succeed in developing a new template for majority governments that excludes the need for Quebec's support, non-separatist Bloc supporters will be rendered impotent - their votes will no longer have the desired impact. If the Conservatives can maintain a majority, these voters may finally switch to a Federalist party to make their vote count. That switch would likely be to the Liberals to try and hamper another Conservative majority....but it doesn't matter which party. What matters is that non-separatists might start to re-enter Federalist politics and the Bloc's influence would start to wane. And that would be good for National Unity.

[Hydraboss]

It is also possible with a majority that the House would vote to exclude any party from the HofC that does not attempt to be a federal one (running candidates in more than one province - two - six - all - whatever). This type of suggestion has been suggested and supported across all party lines (except the Bloc obviously). Personally, I would love to see it but can imagine it becoming an argument of "slippery slopes".

If Harper can obtain a majority with very little support from Kwebek, then he will have done something that is unheard of. I agree that this would completely change the dynamics of Canadian federal politics.

[ToadBrother]

It is also possible with a majority that the House would vote to exclude any party from the HofC that does not attempt to be a federal one (running candidates in more than one province - two - six - all - whatever). This type of suggestion has been suggested and supported across all party lines (except the Bloc obviously). Personally, I would love to see it but can imagine it becoming an argument of "slippery slopes".

If Harper can obtain a majority with very little support from Kwebek, then he will have done something that is unheard of. I agree that this would completely change the dynamics of Canadian federal politics.

Yes, because doing such a stunt would probably guarantee Quebec separation.

[Mr.Canada]

Yes, because doing such a stunt would probably guarantee Quebec separation.

They'd risk being cut off from $8+ Billion a year in taxpayer money?

I don't think so.

[ToadBrother]

They'd risk being cut off from $8+ Billion a year in taxpayer money?

I don't think so.

I think you underestimate things here. If you basically say "We're not going to let 50 MPs act as a party because we don't like Separatists", you're letting off a grenade. If any governing party was to behave so spitefully, I'd support Quebec separation.

[Who's Doing What?]

Shouldn't be allowed to have a federal party that only runs candidates in one province.

[M.Dancer]

Shouldn't be allowed to have a federal party that only runs candidates in one province.

An uninforceable idea.

1) There is precedent. Throughout Canadian history there have been parties that have not been nationwide.

2) There would be a consitutional challenge hinging on the freedom of association.

Plainly put, they already meet the criteria for a recognized party. You cannot change the rules now.

[fellowtraveller]

Y'all are greatly underestimating the pragmatism of Quebec voters. The Bloc serves them well because its existence and relative success gets plenty o'gravy for the province. The electorate there learned long ago that you don't need to separate to prosper, you just need the threat and a way to express that threat: the Bloc. Or the PQ. Or both. It's a tag team.

If they get a strong sense that the Tories are headed for majority territory with or without them, why wouldn't they jump on that bandwagon?

[Wild Bill]

They'd risk being cut off from $8+ Billion a year in taxpayer money?

I don't think so.

Man, are you naive!

First off, most Quebecois are blissfully unaware that they get more than they give but that's not the most important thing.

This is politics! This is perception and emotion! And nothing is more emotional than the idea of separatism! It is tribalism at its most powerful.

Human beings are often illogical. Especially in groups, when the bigger the group the more emotional it seems to become. Some sage once defined Intelligence as a mathematical Constant divided by the number of members of the group.

Quebecers would be perfectly capable of doing something purely emotional like separating even if it meant cutting their own noses off. Afterwards they might regret it or more likely blaming the very politicians they voted in for getting them into the mess but that's just another facet of human nature.

If you are as versed in politics as you claim I would have thought that you'd understand that.

[Who's Doing What?]

An uninforceable idea.

1) There is precedent. Throughout Canadian history there have been parties that have not been nationwide.

2) There would be a consitutional challenge hinging on the freedom of association.

Plainly put, they already meet the criteria for a recognized party. You cannot change the rules now.

Can't change the rules??? LMAO

Harper himself just changed some rules by bringing the fixed election dates which he then conveniently ignored when he called the last election.

All they would have to do is run a couple of candidates in NL, or ON and then it would be ok. Atleast it forces them to spend money outside of Quebec.

Change is a part of life. Sorry MC but the 50's are long gone. The women have been set free and minorities have equal rights.

[M.Dancer]

Change is a part of life. Sorry MC but the 50's are long gone. The women have been set free and minorities have equal rights.

But what hasn't changed is precedent and law. It would be an unwinnable case, and would also be undesirable politically. The Bloc is separation's own worst enemy. It is hard to argue without irony that federalism doesn't work when the Bloc is in Ottawa making Federalism work for Quebec.

Take away the Bloc and the moribund separatist drive is renewed.

[Riverwind]

All new parties start local and then expand nation wide if they can. The BQ is a exception. We don't need to throw out the baby with the bath water.

However, we should change the funding formula from a flat rate per vote to one that takes into account the number of ridings that a party competes in. A good formula would give significantly more money to the greens which attempt to run candidates in all ridings than the BQ even if the Greens and the BQ collect the same number of votes nationally.

[Mr.Canada]

Man, are you naive!

First off, most Quebecois are blissfully unaware that they get more than they give but that's not the most important thing.

This is politics! This is perception and emotion! And nothing is more emotional than the idea of separatism! It is tribalism at its most powerful.

Human beings are often illogical. Especially in groups, when the bigger the group the more emotional it seems to become. Some sage once defined Intelligence as a mathematical Constant divided by the number of members of the group.

Quebecers would be perfectly capable of doing something purely emotional like separating even if it meant cutting their own noses off. Afterwards they might regret it or more likely blaming the very politicians they voted in for getting them into the mess but that's just another facet of human nature.

If you are as versed in politics as you claim I would have thought that you'd understand that.

Oh I understand perfectly. The Reform party was formed and driven on emotion in the form of populism. I don't know everything about politics but I try to keep well informed.

I just don't believe that Quebec politicians would really do it for the reason I stated. While Separation is great with speaking with partisans and gets everybodies blood pumping Duceppe knows the true cost of it minus the fanfare. He hasn't spoken of separation in a very long time, he speaks about getting what's best for Quebec now. I can only assume that the Separation talking points would get ramped up if a Tory majority came to reality as Quebec wouldn't be bale to hold us hostage any more.

[madmax]

A good formula would give significantly more money to the greens which attempt to run candidates in all ridings than the BQ even if the Greens and the BQ collect the same number of votes nationally.

My only concern with that, is that the Green Party has been running paper candidates to receive the extra dollar per vote subsidy since 2004.

I am not a fan of the subsidy, nor the fact that people can donate money and get it back on their tax return.

However, I am not of the opinion that more money needs to go to political parties. I would suggest less.

Back to this thread.

Would a Conservative Majority make the Bloc Irrelevant?

The BQ would be no less Irrelevant then when the Liberals had multiple Majorities and the BQ was the official opposition or 3rd party during this period.

Such discussion is foolish. The Reform Party purposely didn't run candidates in Quebec. I felt that was one of there more stupid petty ideas. However, the Reform party wasn't irrelevant either during these Liberal Minoritys.

Are independants irrelevant? I don't think so, be it Majority or Minority.

The way one makes the BQ Irrelevant in parliment is to defeat their MPs with MPs of another party.

If you are not in Parliment you are less relevant.

[ToadBrother]

Oh I understand perfectly. The Reform party was formed and driven on emotion in the form of populism. I don't know everything about politics but I try to keep well informed.

I just don't believe that Quebec politicians would really do it for the reason I stated. While Separation is great with speaking with partisans and gets everybodies blood pumping Duceppe knows the true cost of it minus the fanfare. He hasn't spoken of separation in a very long time, he speaks about getting what's best for Quebec now. I can only assume that the Separation talking points would get ramped up if a Tory majority came to reality as Quebec wouldn't be bale to hold us hostage any more.

You underestimate the power of nationalism, and of national and ethnic identity. Belgium just barely managed to put itself together again in the last couple of years after literally going several months without a government because the Dutch-speaking Flemish and the French-speaking Walloons became heavily divided. Belgium is one of the most successful unions in modern history, and yet these tensions nearly tore the country in two. Just because separation may in fact cause economic and social dislocation is rather irrelevant to such movements, because, as the other poster said, they are fueled by emotion, by sense of national pride and identity.

And believe me, though the Bloc has been playing nice for over a decade now, and there are some centrist members, there are plenty who are still very much separatists. Give these people an excuse to go back to their ridings to declare that the Federal government has declared war on Quebec, and there'll be hell to pay. The Parti Quebecois is in a decline now, and the Bloc has made its devil's bargain with the House of Commons, so why on Earth would anyone be stupid or insane enough to try to pick an unnecessary fight?

[Moonbox]

If you are not in Parliment you are less relevant.

Obviously. You can also be made irrelevant by constantly being left out of the balance of power. The Bloc has accomplished nothing lately and is not likely to accomplish anything for awhile.

The only way to keep Bloc MP's out of power is to marginalize the party. A majority will certainly do that but so would avoiding the unfair appeasement of Quebec by ALL the national parties.

[ToadBrother]

Obviously. You can also be made irrelevant by constantly being left out of the balance of power. The Bloc has accomplished nothing lately and is not likely to accomplish anything for awhile.

The only way to keep Bloc MP's out of power is to marginalize the party. A majority will certainly do that but so would avoiding the unfair appeasement of Quebec by ALL the national parties.

The Bloc has spent most of its electoral history under majority governments. It has not terribly hampered its continued electoral successes. As to doing anything, it's one of the pillars that keeps the Conservatives afloat. It's wielding more power right now than it ever did.

[Mr.Canada]

The Bloc has spent most of its electoral history under majority governments. It has not terribly hampered its continued electoral successes. As to doing anything, it's one of the pillars that keeps the Conservatives afloat. It's wielding more power right now than it ever did.

If PM Harper and the Tories can win a majority with a minimum of Quebec seats it would send a strong message to Quebec as PM Harper wouldn't need to try to bribe Quebecers as has been tried in the not so distant past.

PM Harper wouldn't need to listen to Ducepee at all and could happily ignore him. Well perhaps ignore him isn't the right word but put less weight into what he says and more importantly demands.

With a minority government the sitting government needs votes of other parties to survive. With a majority PM Harper would no longer need those votes and after January 2010 will have control of the senate. PM Harper would be able to pass any legislation he wanted and no party or Senate would be able to stop them.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[ToadBrother]

If PM Harper and the Tories can win a majority with a minimum of Quebec seats it would send a strong message to Quebec as PM Harper wouldn't need to try to bribe Quebecers as has been tried in the not so distant past.

PM Harper wouldn't need to listen to Ducepee at all and could happily ignore him. Well perhaps ignore him isn't the right word but put less weight into what he says and more importantly demands.

With a minority government the sitting government needs votes of other parties to survive. With a majority PM Harper would no longer need those votes and after January 2010 will have control of the senate. PM Harper would be able to pass any legislation he wanted and no party or Senate would be able to stop them.

No one is disputing that. But that was precisely the same situation Chretien was in for a decade, and the Bloc survived, and even thrived. You won't find a guy more loathed by the Separatists than Chretien, and yet, at the end of the day, the Bloc was still there.

[Moonbox]

The Bloc has spent most of its electoral history under majority governments. It has not terribly hampered its continued electoral successes. As to doing anything, it's one of the pillars that keeps the Conservatives afloat. It's wielding more power right now than it ever did.

The Bloc is only 18 years old. It was created almost out of protest after the collapse of the PC party back in the 90's and its goal was sovereignty. Since the late 1990's that goal has been snuffed out. As an actual party on the federal scene, it's only been relevant for 5 years worth of minorities. This is what's kept it alive since the idea of independant Quebec dissapeared. Under a couple of majorities WITHOUT the purpose of seperatism, the Bloc would no longer serve any function and les Quebecquois would figure this out on their own. They're french, not stupid.

[Riverwind]

No one is disputing that. But that was precisely the same situation Chretien was in for a decade, and the Bloc survived, and even thrived. You won't find a guy more loathed by the Separatists than Chretien, and yet, at the end of the day, the Bloc was still there.

The BQ will not dissappear because of the federal party funding subsidies and the 30% of Quebequers who are committed sovereigntists. However, its influence always depended on federal parties caring about those Quebec seats that could swing either way. The way things are shaping up is the federal parties may write off those swing seats because there are more seats to be had in the swing ridings around toronto and vancouver.

[ToadBrother]

The Bloc is only 18 years old. It was created almost out of protest after the collapse of the PC party back in the 90's and its goal was sovereignty. Since the late 1990's that goal has been snuffed out. As an actual party on the federal scene, it's only been relevant for 5 years worth of minorities. This is what's kept it alive since the idea of independant Quebec dissapeared. Under a couple of majorities WITHOUT the purpose of seperatism, the Bloc would no longer serve any function and les Quebecquois would figure this out on their own. They're french, not stupid.

I think I'll file this one under the "Wishful Thinking".

[Keepitsimple]

However, we should change the funding formula from a flat rate per vote to one that takes into account the number of ridings that a party competes in. A good formula would give significantly more money to the greens which attempt to run candidates in all ridings than the BQ even if the Greens and the BQ collect the same number of votes nationally.

I'd like to see the prinicple of the per-vote subsidy changed. It should be viewed as kickstart funding for new parties like the Greens.....and they are a good example. Any new party, providing they get 2% of the national vote would be entitled to $2.00 for the first 100,000 votes, $1.00 for the next 100,000 votes and $0.50 for the next 100,000 votes. All parties would be eligible but the most they would get is $350,000. This would at least allow smaller parties to create a framework for ridings and fundraising. The priniple is - we'll help you get started but then you're on your own - if you have a good message and commitment, you'l have a chance at success. The big parties don't need the government dole - but they can still get the $350,000.

[M.Dancer]

I'd like to see the prinicple of the per-vote subsidy changed. It should be viewed as kickstart funding for new parties like the Greens.....and they are a good example. Any new party, providing they get 2% of the national vote would be entitled to $2.00 for the first 100,000 votes, $1.00 for the next 100,000 votes and $0.50 for the next 100,000 votes. All parties would be eligible but the most they would get is $350,000. This would at least allow smaller parties to create a framework for ridings and fundraising. The priniple is - we'll help you get started but then you're on your own - if you have a good message and commitment, you'l have a chance at success. The big parties don't need the government dole - but they can still get the $350,000.

I would prefer welfare be cut off to all parties.

Both the Bloc and the Reform were able to form viable parties without the Welfare. If the Greens can't, there is a very good reason.

[madmax]

I would prefer welfare be cut off to all parties.

Both the Bloc and the Reform were able to form viable parties without the Welfare. If the Greens can't, there is a very good reason.

If you cut off all forms of Welfare to the political parties even the CPC are DEAD! If you want to pick and choose which form of Political Welfare you dislike, then the $1.95 loss would wipe out the Green Party.

If you get rid of the kickbacks to Donors, then many CPC and LPC donations would disappear as the contributor isn't getting their money back in Public Tax benefits.

I am in favour of killing it all. No tax credits because you donate to a political party.

This is wrong!!! Its a political party it's not a charity.

Edited October 6, 2009 by madmax