Has Quebec become irrelevant to the mainstream parties?

[Wild Bill]

There was a discussion in another thread which featured a column from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/puritanism-could-be-a-winner/article1669828/

There was one point near the end which struck me:

"What’s happened this past decade is that Quebec has lost its long-time leverage. No one cares much about its priorities now that the separatist blackmail threat, the sword of Damocles, has been removed."

The BQ has been around for 20 years and still hasn't succeeded in taking Quebec out of Confederation. However, they gobble up a big block of seats, leaving the other parties scratching for what's left.

Is "what's left" worth chasing? The Bloc's portion effectively has diluted Quebec's power in Parliament. They are really only relevant on issues pertinent to their nationalist goals. Overall, their voting on any issue is always quite predictable.

Perhaps the new strategy is to not waste a lot of resources catering to Quebec and concentrate on other areas of the country where there are useful numbers of votes to chase.

[dre]

I think those seats are still relevant.

Any party that wants to get a majority government is going to have to win a bunch of those seats.

Having said that, I dont ever want to see another majority government again anyways...

[Jack Weber]

There was a discussion in another thread which featured a column from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/puritanism-could-be-a-winner/article1669828/

There was one point near the end which struck me:

"What’s happened this past decade is that Quebec has lost its long-time leverage. No one cares much about its priorities now that the separatist blackmail threat, the sword of Damocles, has been removed."

The BQ has been around for 20 years and still hasn't succeeded in taking Quebec out of Confederation. However, they gobble up a big block of seats, leaving the other parties scratching for what's left.

Is "what's left" worth chasing? The Bloc's portion effectively has diluted Quebec's power in Parliament. They are really only relevant on issues pertinent to their nationalist goals. Overall, their voting on any issue is always quite predictable.

Perhaps the new strategy is to not waste a lot of resources catering to Quebec and concentrate on other areas of the country where there are useful numbers of votes to chase.

I agree,but it works both ways...

I think the speration issue is basically dead,with the exception of a few nutjobs.Basically the Bloq vote seems to be like the old Reform vote...

Remember,"The West needs to be represented in Ottawa!!!"

I think the Bloq vote is essentially the same thing as it provides a voice to the average Quebecer in Ottawa,most of whom are not seperatists.And as long as Ottawa keeps throwing Duceppe and his merry band of outdated agitators financial bones and promises of phony recognition,then they'll keep getting votes in the province.

For example...That amount of transfer money Duceppe continues to get for his province is hardly irrelevent...

And because the Bloq takes up such a large chunk of seats in Parliament,the loss of power to the federal parties is hardly irrelevent.

[Wild Bill]

I think those seats are still relevant.

Any party that wants to get a majority government is going to have to win a bunch of those seats.

Having said that, I dont ever want to see another majority government again anyways...

But that's the issue, Dre! How easy is it to get a big chunk of seats in Quebec, considering how the Bloc always comes up with so many? How expensive is it to pay for hard fought campaigns? Does putting planks in your platform to please Quebec cost you seats in other parts of the country that might be easier (or cheaper!) to win?

It IS possible to have a majority without Quebec! The question is what would it cost to do it. Also, how would Quebecers feel about becoming irrelevant? Would they then be more inclined to support a party that would be in power? Or would they lean even more towards separation?

I'd like to get some input from people like August and others who actually live in Quebec to answer that one.

[dre]

But that's the issue, Dre! How easy is it to get a big chunk of seats in Quebec, considering how the Bloc always comes up with so many? How expensive is it to pay for hard fought campaigns? Does putting planks in your platform to please Quebec cost you seats in other parts of the country that might be easier (or cheaper!) to win?

It IS possible to have a majority without Quebec! The question is what would it cost to do it. Also, how would Quebecers feel about becoming irrelevant? Would they then be more inclined to support a party that would be in power? Or would they lean even more towards separation?

I'd like to get some input from people like August and others who actually live in Quebec to answer that one.

It IS possible to have a majority without Quebec!

Mathematically yeah, but I think its extremely unlikey, unless one of the major parties COMPLETELY imploded.

[Jack Weber]

But that's the issue, Dre! How easy is it to get a big chunk of seats in Quebec, considering how the Bloc always comes up with so many? How expensive is it to pay for hard fought campaigns? Does putting planks in your platform to please Quebec cost you seats in other parts of the country that might be easier (or cheaper!) to win?

It IS possible to have a majority without Quebec! The question is what would it cost to do it. Also, how would Quebecers feel about becoming irrelevant? Would they then be more inclined to support a party that would be in power? Or would they lean even more towards separation?

I'd like to get some input from people like August and others who actually live in Quebec to answer that one.

Let' say you take Quebec completely out of the equation...

That still does'nt answer the other regional differences in the rest of the country.And that's how a party attains a majority without Quebec.

Harper came about as close as one can during the last election.I think it's as close as he's going to get...

[dre]

Let' say you take Quebec completely out of the equation...

That still does'nt answer the other regional differences in the rest of the country.And that's how a party attains a majority without Quebec.

Harper came about as close as one can during the last election.I think it's as close as he's going to get...

Which makes those seats very relevant. Having those seats there is protecting us from a majority conservative or liberal government. If those seats were not part of the equation then we would have a harper majority right now.

[Moonbox]

The seperatist threat is dead for all reasonable purposes. Montreal makes it impossible. Montreal wouldn't want to go and Quebec is nothing without it.

[segnosaur]

And because the Bloq takes up such a large chunk of seats in Parliament,the loss of power to the federal parties is hardly irrelevent.

Yup, the bloc does win a lot of seats in Quebec. But they are not going to win seats outside of Quebec.

On the other hand, its possible that other parties recognize that the Bloc has a lock on the majority of seats in Quebec, so why bother allowing them to have any extra influence?

That still does'nt answer the other regional differences in the rest of the country.And that's how a party attains a majority without Quebec.

Harper came about as close as one can during the last election.I think it's as close as he's going to get...

Personally, I think the problem for the Conservatives was not their inability to win seats in Quebec, but their inability to make a breakthrough in Ontario. If they were to do that they could win a majority with their high level of support in the West (plus the seats they earn in the maritimes.)

Remember, for years the Liberals (under Trudeau) managed to gain majorities even when they were virtually shut out of the west. So it is possible to win elections if you don't have universal support from coast to coast.

[msdogfood]

There was a discussion in another thread which featured a column from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/puritanism-could-be-a-winner/article1669828/

There was one point near the end which struck me:

"What’s happened this past decade is that Quebec has lost its long-time leverage. No one cares much about its priorities now that the separatist blackmail threat, the sword of Damocles, has been removed."

The BQ has been around for 20 years and still hasn't succeeded in taking Quebec out of Confederation. However, they gobble up a big block of seats, leaving the other parties scratching for what's left.

Is "what's left" worth chasing? The Bloc's portion effectively has diluted Quebec's power in Parliament. They are really only relevant on issues pertinent to their nationalist goals. Overall, their voting on any issue is always quite predictable.

Perhaps the new strategy is to not waste a lot of resources catering to Quebec and concentrate on other areas of the country where there are useful numbers of votes to chase.

Not AT ALL see Census debate! but the Bloq itself is!

[Argus]

Perhaps the new strategy is to not waste a lot of resources catering to Quebec and concentrate on other areas of the country where there are useful numbers of votes to chase.

Since the BQ is guaranteed to win at least half the seats in Quebec that means only half as many seats are in any way up for contest. You can be guaranteed, as well, that half those seats are liberal locks. In other words, it would take a societal revolution to get the voters in those ridings to swing anywhere. That means neither Liberals nor Tories nor anyone else is going to worry about them. So in reality, very few seats are really up for grabs in Quebec.

Now how to go for them. Well, Quebec is much further to the Left than most of the rest of the country. That means if you, as a national party, design platforms to please Quebecers, you're going to alienate voters elsewhere. Likewise, if you design policies that will please people in Ontario and the West, it will displease Quebecers.

The Tories did everything but stand on their head during their last term, giving Quebec recognition, billions extra in transfer payments, and did their level best to ingratiate themselves to the Quebec people. They got nothing out of it. A crackdown on youth offenders clearly wanted in the rest of the country went over badly in Quebec, where the hug-a-thug school of thought is still strongly embraced by the chattering classes and media. And a few, minor cuts to arts programs was portrayed as a violent attack on Quebec's culture by les maudit anglais.

On top of that, there's the language issue. No party not led by a Francophone, preferably a Quebec Francophone, is going to have much chance of popularity in Quebec. Quebecers are the continent's most most inward looking "provincial" people, and will always vote for one of their own first.

I think the Tories have given up on extending their popularity in Quebec as too much effort for too little, too uncertain a reward. Any further policies designed to woo the small number of Quebecers who can be wooed would cost them more votes elsewhere, where they really do have a legitimate chance of making inroads. I think the Liberals are similarly not bothering much with Quebec. They have many seats locked in and no chance with most of the rest because they have an Anglo leader. They'd rather try to pick up seats in Ontario and BC.

[Topaz]

First of all, IF the Conservatives were to pick-up seats in BC or Ontario, they would have to get rid of Harper and get a more kinder, gentler leader, man or woman! Next, Gilles and the Bloc, are the only party in the world(I think) to be against the nation in which they live, doesn't care for the Queen, and yet seat in Parliament and get Canadian pay cheques and golden pensions! I wouldn't be surprised though, if Gilles was a closet Federalist, just putting on a good front to keep the party going and jobs for all those Bloc-ers.

[Visionseeker]

Since the BQ is guaranteed to win at least half the seats in Quebec that means only half as many seats are in any way up for contest. You can be guaranteed, as well, that half those seats are liberal locks. In other words, it would take a societal revolution to get the voters in those ridings to swing anywhere. That means neither Liberals nor Tories nor anyone else is going to worry about them. So in reality, very few seats are really up for grabs in Quebec.

Um, it is one thing to recognize the status quo, it is another thing all together to capitulate to it.

Now how to go for them. Well, Quebec is much further to the Left than most of the rest of the country. That means if you, as a national party, design platforms to please Quebecers, you're going to alienate voters elsewhere. Likewise, if you design policies that will please people in Ontario and the West, it will displease Quebecers.

Québec is not more leftist, it is statist; meaning that it is much more apt to have the state intervene in various domains regardless of left-right dynamics. Québec is the anathema of libertarianism because collectivist leanings undermine individualism. This explains why Alberta (having a heavy libertarian lean) is often at odds with Québec's aims.

Ontario is almost a state within a state and its ever entrenching pluralism makes it much more receptive to some of Québec's statist aims.

The Tories did everything but stand on their head during their last term, giving Quebec recognition, billions extra in transfer payments, and did their level best to ingratiate themselves to the Quebec people. They got nothing out of it. A crackdown on youth offenders clearly wanted in the rest of the country went over badly in Quebec, where the hug-a-thug school of thought is still strongly embraced by the chattering classes and media. And a few, minor cuts to arts programs was portrayed as a violent attack on Quebec's culture by les maudit anglais.

They (the Tories) threw bones with no meat on them to Québec. Further, the young offenders approach was not supported by key constituencies across the country.

On top of that, there's the language issue. No party not led by a Francophone, preferably a Quebec Francophone, is going to have much chance of popularity in Quebec.

Explain Mulroney then.

Quebecers are the continent's most most inward looking "provincial" people, and will always vote for one of their own first.

Explain Dion

I think the Tories have given up on extending their popularity in Quebec as too much effort for too little, too uncertain a reward. Any further policies designed to woo the small number of Quebecers who can be wooed would cost them more votes elsewhere, where they really do have a legitimate chance of making inroads. I think the Liberals are similarly not bothering much with Quebec. They have many seats locked in and no chance with most of the rest because they have an Anglo leader. They'd rather try to pick up seats in Ontario and BC.

I don't think there are that many votes to be gained elsewhere. Excluding Québec, only one in five seats are truly contested in a federal election. Mulroney stabbed the nerve of the "Québec problem" and we've been living with it ever since. The country and our government cannot become whole until we treat and cover that nerve and thereby put more seats into play.

[August1991]

"What’s happened this past decade is that Quebec has lost its long-time leverage. No one cares much about its priorities now that the separatist blackmail threat, the sword of Damocles, has been removed."

Lawrence Martin wrote that, and I laughed.

Let' say you take Quebec completely out of the equation...

Hmmm.

The seperatist threat is dead for all reasonable purposes.

Unfortunatley no.

Since the BQ is guaranteed to win at least half the seats in Quebec that means only half as many seats are in any way up for contest.

Since when?

I think the Tories have given up on extending their popularity in Quebec as too much effort for too little,

too uncertain a reward. Any further policies designed to woo the small number of Quebecers who can be wooed would cost them more votes elsewhere, where they really do have a legitimate chance of making inroads. I think the Liberals are similarly not bothering much with Quebec. They have many seats locked in and no chance with most of the rest because they have an Anglo leader. They'd rather try to pick up seats in Ontario and BC.

Your call, Argus.

----

The reaction of English Canadian politically obsessed posters amazes me. French Canadian voters don't matter?

Stephen Harper has a minority government and this is normal.

[August1991]

Québec is the anathema of libertarianism because collectivist leanings undermine individualism.

Ce qui explique l'ésprit puritain - des Canadiens français.

And it also explains why Americans refer to St-Louis, or Baton Rouge and why Canadians in Manitoba call it Portage.

We are all entitled to an opinion.

But God, give me a break from a poster who posts such nonsensical comments about people and places. If you know something, say/post something. Otherwise, say nothing, or at least post your comment as a question.

----

For God's sake, why are they called "Cree"?

Edited August 15, 2010 by August1991

[Argus]

Um, it is one thing to recognize the status quo, it is another thing all together to capitulate to it

Political parties do it every election. Every one of them pretends to campaign right across the country, but in reality they know only about 25% of seats, at most, are ever really up for grabs, and it is there they focus their real efforts.

Québec is not more leftist, it is statist;

You are using different words to define the same thing.

The point is that policies which would sway Quebecers would cost votes elsewhere and vice versa.

They (the Tories) threw bones with no meat on them to Québec.

Riiiight. And what would you call a bone with meat on it? Offering to give them carte blanche veto power over all aspects of life? They rewrote the transfer agreements to give them billions more. They gave them their precious recognition. They talked about devolving more power to the provinces, they fought off their natural instinct to hugely slash arts, heritage, cultural programs (much to the surprise of most). They did their best to please Quebecers, and then people like you dismiss it as "bones with no meat". There is no way they can please Quebecers, so there is no point in trying.

Further, the young offenders approach was not supported by key constituencies across the country.

Aside from noisy lawyers and social welfare advocates - none of whom would vote Tory EVER, it was quite popular.

Explain Mulroney then.

Mulroney spoke better French than most Quebecers. He grew up in Quebec, understood them, and was as perfectly fluent as Trudeau was in English.

Explain Dion

What about Dion? I didn't say Quebecers would flock to a Francophone. I said they would never support anyone not led by one. Dion simply caused Quebec voters to vote BQ. If the BQ was not available, the Liberals would be in power because almost all of those seats would have gone Liberal.

[fellowtraveller]

Quebec is certainly not irrelevant to the mainstream parties, but the circumstances where that could happen is not unimaginable.

Separatism is on the backburner for now, yet Quebec still elects plenty of Bloc MPs because they have done their job in getting a disproportionate chunk of federal resources to the province.

Should a party gain a majority or two without Quebec seats, there will surely be an examination of the financial balance sheet for the country, and Quebec will then have the choice of leaving or joining the flock again by electing mainstream MPs. In the first circumstance the Bloc would have succeeded in their primary goal and would play a large role in an independent Quebec, in the second their influence would be ended.

[Guy M]

Surely Quebec is not irrelevant to the mainstream political parties. They could all use 20 or 30 extra seats besides that they get in the rest of Canada, and they all make attempts at getting exposure in the francophone media, in staffing high profile Quebecers in key positions ect. Witness George Laracque last week! Or the conservatives appointing Jacques Demers to the senate a few months back.

The bigger problem is that it's becoming harder to re-concile the interests and desires of Canada's regions. This is true for the east-west divide inside English Canada, and has become increasingly difficult between Ontario and Quebec since the 1995 referendum. The alliances that made the majorities of Trudeau, Chretien and Mulroney possible are now harder to build than before.

It's no coincidence that one could draw many similarities between the 3 men above; They were all from Quebec, they were all 'company men' to Canada's economic and industrial establishment on Bay Street. They were palatable to most people in Central/Atlantic Canada and had the fundraising / media backing to succeed.

Since the referendum, it has become far less palatable in the ROC to have a francophone party leader. I would venture in fact that we will not see a francophone Prime Minister for quite some time. In Quebec, this only goes to re-inforce the view, justifiably so, that both the Liberal and Conservative "cores" are from outside the province.

[Smallc]

Should a party gain a majority or two without Quebec seats, there will surely be an examination of the financial balance sheet for the country, and Quebec will then have the choice of leaving or joining the flock again by electing mainstream MPs.

Pfft, in your dreams maybe. Or is that you imagining yourself speaking for Canada? Try again.

[Smallc]

The bigger problem is that it's becoming harder to re-concile the interests and desires of Canada's regions.

Based on what? It has always been this way in Canada.

[Visionseeker]

Ce qui explique l'ésprit puritain - des Canadiens français.

And it also explains why Americans refer to St-Louis, or Baton Rouge and why Canadians in Manitoba call it Portage.

We are all entitled to an opinion.

But God, give me a break from a poster who posts such nonsensical comments about people and places. If you know something, say/post something. Otherwise, say nothing, or at least post your comment as a question.

----

For God's sake, why are they called "Cree"?

Obviously, I hit a nerve. Though I don't rightly know how.

Crois-tu que je n'ai rien à offrir sur le sujet? Restez assurer qu'il n'y a pas d'ésprit puritain ici.

Are you contesting that Québec is collectivist?

St-Louis, Baton-Rouge and Portage... You forgot Detroit and Batoche among many others. But I don't see a relation to my post. And where does the Cree figure the equation?

I'm a little baffled.

[Visionseeker]

Political parties do it every election. Every one of them pretends to campaign right across the country, but in reality they know only about 25% of seats, at most, are ever really up for grabs, and it is there they focus their real efforts.

So partisan entrenchment is an across the country phenomenon, not just in Québec? Maybe the Liberals and NDP should give up on Alberta since 90% of their seats have gone Tory/Reform for what, 50 years now?

Québec has shown much more electoral volatility than any other province over the last 50 years. La belle province is where a good campaign harvests some ripe fruit.

You are using different words to define the same thing.

The point is that policies which would sway Quebecers would cost votes elsewhere and vice versa.

Hum, so you are saying that Québec is distinct?

Riiiight. And what would you call a bone with meat on it? Offering to give them carte blanche veto power over all aspects of life? They rewrote the transfer agreements to give them billions more. They gave them their precious recognition. They talked about devolving more power to the provinces, they fought off their natural instinct to hugely slash arts, heritage, cultural programs (much to the surprise of most). They did their best to please Quebecers, and then people like you dismiss it as "bones with no meat". There is no way they can please Quebecers, so there is no point in trying.

There is no way to please the electorate, Period. But politics is the art of either trying to, or fooling it. Québec is historically a cynical beast in federal politics so you either try harder to please, or fool them and hope that the injury heels in time for the next poll.

Aside from noisy lawyers and social welfare advocates - none of whom would vote Tory EVER, it was quite popular.

Roughly 65% of the population has seemed disinclined to ever vote Tory, so your claim of popularity is rather dubious.

Mulroney spoke better French than most Quebecers. He grew up in Quebec, understood them, and was as perfectly fluent as Trudeau was in English.

So the key to winning support in Québec is to speak French competently and understand them. My God! What a herculean undertaking!

What about Dion? I didn't say Quebecers would flock to a Francophone. I said they would never support anyone not led by one.

See above

Dion simply caused Quebec voters to vote BQ. If the BQ was not available, the Liberals would be in power because almost all of those seats would have gone Liberal.

And if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle.

[Argus]

So partisan entrenchment is an across the country phenomenon, not just in Québec? Maybe the Liberals and NDP should give up on Alberta since 90% of their seats have gone Tory/Reform for what, 50 years now

They mostly have. Oh they campaign there, but if there's an opportunity to score points against the Tories by taking shots at Alberta they'll certainly not forego it because of how that looks to Alberta.

Québec has shown much more electoral volatility than any other province over the last 50 years. La belle province is where a good campaign harvests some ripe fruit.

Counting the last 50 years for Quebec is like counting the last 50 years for Russia. You can't compare what happened 20 years ago with what's been happening since.

There is no way to please the electorate, Period. But politics is the art of either trying to, or fooling it. Québec is historically a cynical beast in federal politics so you either try harder to please, or fool them and hope that the injury heels in time for the next poll.

So in defense of your statement that the Tories only gave Quebec bones without meat you're saying what they should have really done was simply lied to them?

Roughly 65% of the population has seemed disinclined to ever vote Tory, so your claim of popularity is rather dubious.

I said that reforming the YOA was popular. I know people who would never vote Tory who liked the idea - a lot.

So the key to winning support in Québec is to speak French competently and understand them. My God! What a herculean undertaking!

Mulroney didn't speak French "competently". Iggy and Harper speak it competently. Mulroney spoke it like a native, and, an important element, he was the only Quebecer they had as an option. He didn't face a francophone. So it was him or the English guy.

[fellowtraveller]

Pfft, in your dreams maybe. Or is that you imagining yourself speaking for Canada? Try again.

Speaking for Canada?

No, just offering a scenario that is certainly possible- a party attaining a majority with little or no seats in Quebec.

What possible reason would there be then for the grotesque imbalance in transfer payments to Quebec? No votes, no seats and billions going to a region not required for a majority... there would be little reason to keep paying them off.

The next question would b for Quebec-what reason would there be for the Bloc to Quebec voters. The reason they are popular is not their separatist base, it is that they bring home the bacon to the province and always have.

I respect the pragmatism of Quebec voters, they have done what worked for them and will again.

[fellowtraveller]

Based on what? It has always been this way in Canada.

Some of us have noted a change in the last 20 years in regionalism.

It is definitely greater now than ever, everybody sees the only way to get a nice slice of the pie is to fight hard for their share and more.