Lebanon, Harper & Quebec

[August1991]

These past few days, there has been much discussion in Quebec about the following Leger Marketing poll results (they have received little attention in English Canada but here's one cite.)

Leger asked respondents whether they “strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed with Harper’s support of Israel’s armed intervention in Lebanon?”

Forty-eight per cent of respondents disagreed, 30 per cent of them strongly.

Thirty-five per cent of Canadians polled agreed with Harper, 15 per cent strongly, while 17 per cent did not know or refused to answer.

Again, Quebec residents who took part in the poll were most critical. Sixty-seven per cent said they disagreed with Harper’s position.

National Post

...deux Québécois sur trois (67 pour cent) condamnent la position de Stephen Harper qui appuie l'intervention armée d'Israël au Liban, tandis que 48 pour cent des Canadiens y sont défavorables.

Le Soleil

If you take the Quebec opinion out of the Canadian opinion, then it becomes clear that there is a wide difference between opinion in Quebec and opinion in ROC concerning Harper's support for Israel.

Such dividing issues are usually death to federal politicians.

Josée Verner has commented indirectly on these results:

La ministre Josée Verner croit que le Canada ne pouvait faire plus et plus vite devant la crise dans laquelle sont entraînés les Canadiens se trouvant au Liban. Elle ne croit pas non plus que l’appui sans réserve donné à Israël par le premier ministre Stephen Harper affectera l’image du pays auprès de la Francophonie.

Le Soleil

There is a strong streak of isolationism in Quebec, particularly outside of Montreal. It resembles in many ways the isolationism in the US before WWII. People simply (and wisely IMV) see no point in getting involved in foreign entanglements. In Montreal, the story is different. Like urban voters in ROC, les Montréalais have a Leftist view of Harper. Finally, as usual, there is the sovereignist/federalist split. Sovereignists would like to think they can recuperate the (generally federalist) Lebanese vote (and the isolationist vote) by suggesting Quebec would have a neutral foreign policy.

So, will this issue affect Tory hopes for 30 Quebec seats in the next election?

I frankly think the Montreal vote is almost a lost cause for the Tories. But Harper can still do well outside of Montreal.

First, foreign policy issues don't matter that much. (When this war is out of the headlines, the old issues will return.) Second, Harper is not suggesting Canada should send troops to fight alongside the IDF. (This is not a conscription crisis.) Third, Harper can argue rightly that foreign affairs and defence are federal jurisdiction and as PM, he has taken a position. And fourth, Harper can say that Canada cannot stand on the sidelines in this modern world. We have to take a side and this is the right side. (Admittedly, I don't know if Harper wants to get into this discussion but if he managed it successfully (big if), he would win alot.)

All in, I would expect to see Harper put this specific position on the backburner without compromising it. He has enough fish to fry and a federal politician must learn which fish deserve attention.

For what it's worth, here's Stephane Dion's (non) position:

I hope very much that all the forces involved will quickly lay down their arms and come to a peaceful conclusion in the interest of everyone in the region and around the world.

And then there is the slippery Liberal position, as evoked by Jason Cherniak:

I came under fire for suggesting that while I support Israel, I think Canadian politicians should only remain neutral and offer to mediate.

...

There are always situations in which one has to take a firm position. Those situations are when you actually have the ability to do something. They range from tax cuts, to social spending to joining just wars when civilization is under threat. However, if you can do nothing but talk about a problem, then you are not helping. I would never go so far as to ask where Lebanon is or say that I cannot tell the difference between Israelis and Arabs. Instead, I would ask "what can we do about it?" If there is no good answer, then say so and move on. Don't try to buy people with cheap words.

[Bakunin]

Actually, it did hurt my support to harper... 2 thing piss me off about the conservative, social conservativism and foreign policy. Its definatly the first major mistake by the conservative government, but thats all it is, a big mistake, if they learn from it, they will get stronger, if they don't they will get weaker.

And when i say this, im not making politics, either if your for or against the war in lebanon, the way the government acted was a bad move.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This poll does not surprise me. Living in right wing Alberta a vast majority of support here foes toward Israel. Then again Alberta is a very religious place, much the same as Quebec, but with a different viewpoint.

[Toro]

I don't know about Quebec, but Canada's position in the Middle East will not matter one iota when it comes time to vote in English Canada.

[jdobbin]

Harper's support might come from what he eventually offers Quebec economically. And that might hurt him more elsewhere in Canada.

[jbg]

Actually, it did hurt my support to harper... 2 thing piss me off about the conservative, social conservativism and foreign policy. Its definatly the first major mistake by the conservative government, but thats all it is, a big mistake, if they learn from it, they will get stronger, if they don't they will get weaker.

And when i say this, im not making politics, either if your for or against the war in lebanon, the way the government acted was a bad move.

It's a moral position.

[Bakunin]

Actually, it did hurt my support to harper... 2 thing piss me off about the conservative, social conservativism and foreign policy. Its definatly the first major mistake by the conservative government, but thats all it is, a big mistake, if they learn from it, they will get stronger, if they don't they will get weaker.

And when i say this, im not making politics, either if your for or against the war in lebanon, the way the government acted was a bad move.

It's a moral position.

Exactly, and since there are divergent moral position in the country, as a government, harper must learn when not to express his feeling, that was the mistake.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Excellent post, you often see what others do not.

Toro raises a good point,

I don't know about Quebec, but Canada's position in the Middle East will not matter one iota when it comes time to vote in English Canada.

some in 'the rest of Canada', particularly in Alberta, are possibly even more isolationist (and seperatist) than some Quebecois, or the US before (and during) WWII.

So, will this issue affect Tory hopes for 30 Quebec seats in the next election?

Not if they don't care. BTW, does media influence them? Or are they immune (you know, 'being different', and all)?

I saw Peter McKay jousting with Peter Mansbridge the other day on the telly, ( I tuned in to the news for a short bit, even though I try to shun the medium) and Mansbridge tried to pin down McKay on whether or not Israel was included in Canada's 'stated position' that all parties should cease hostilities, and Mckay tried to 'weasel out of it'...Mansbridge: "When you say 'all parties, do you include Israel as part of 'all parties?"

McKay: "Let me be clear, when I said 'all parties, I meant all parties should cease hostilities..."

Generally, a 'clarification' is not meant 'to make one's self clear', it is 'to put one's self in the clear'.

[August1991]

It's a moral position.

Exactly, and since there are divergent moral position in the country, as a government, harper must learn when not to express his feeling, that was the mistake.

Bakunin, Levesque on Point de mire brought many people in Quebec into the modern world. As Quebecers once left their names all over this continent, they now are all over this planet. They have moral opinions.

Quebec's isolationism is partly in the past. I'm not certain Quebecers will share the same opinion as knee-jerk English-Canadians but Quebec must be involved.

Bakunin, if Quebec were an independent country facing a critical vote at the UN, would its ambassador vote for Hizballah (as many Lebanese in Montreal want) or would it vote for Israel? Or would Quebec vote to abstain?

----

Levesque as a TV journalist in the 1950s willingly tried to explain all this. I doubt Harper as an Anglophone PM wants to explain to Quebecers why Quebec should get involved in the world.

Yet, Harper took a clear position. And voters in Quebec know what he thinks. IMV, Harper's claim to Quebec votes is that he's a "fair play Anglo". C'est pas un crosseur.

[Bakunin]

It's a moral position.

Exactly, and since there are divergent moral position in the country, as a government, harper must learn when not to express his feeling, that was the mistake.

Bakunin, Levesque on Point de mire brought many people in Quebec into the modern world. As Quebecers once left their names all over this continent, they now are all over this planet. They have moral opinions.

Quebec's isolationism is partly in the past. I'm not certain Quebecers will share the same opinion as knee-jerk English-Canadians but Quebec must be involved.

Bakunin, if Quebec were an independent country facing a critical vote at the UN, would its ambassador vote for Hizballah (as many Lebanese in Montreal want) or would it vote for Israel? Or would Quebec vote to abstain?

----

Levesque as a TV journalist in the 1950s willingly tried to explain all this. I doubt Harper as an Anglophone PM wants to explain to Quebecers why Quebec should get involved in the world.

Yet, Harper took a clear position. And voters in Quebec know what he thinks. IMV, Harper's claim to Quebec votes is that he's a "fair play Anglo". C'est pas un crosseur.

Politics is politics, government get elected then fall, it has always been like this and its no different with Harper. Those mistakes can accelerate the processus, this is my responce to your thread. Social conservativism is as popular in alberta as social liberalism is in quebec. Evry time Harper remember us he's a social conservativism, he'll dig his grave because social conservativist in quebec could shift to the liberal in a heartbeat and i bet most of them did not vote for the conservative last election. The adequist are the closest thing you'll get from a conservative and they aren't social conservative.

[August1991]

Politics is politics, government get elected then fall, it has always been like this and its no different with Harper. Those mistakes can accelerate the processus, this is my responce to your thread.

My responce? Les absents ont toujours tort.

[Bakunin]

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060727...19/CPACTUALITES

Thats what i thought, it was a political mistake :/ now they can forget about a majority government soon but thats not the worst, the worst is they had the momentum why risk it when you have a minority government ?, they should have played safe.

[gc1765]

If anything is going to hurt Harper's support, it will be his broken promise to address the fiscal imbalance. Also, if the Liberals can manage to elect a leader with integrity, and Quebecers can forgive the liberals for the sponsorship scandal, then perhaps they might take some support away from the conservatives. I think a lot of Quebecers voted for the conservatives because they really didn't like the other choices offered.

[August1991]

Here's the key paragraph:

Au Québec, la province que M. Harper a courtisé avec le plus d'assiduité, le sondage démontre que le Bloc québécois obtient 43 pour cent des intentions de vote, une hausse de cinq points depuis le dernier sondage de Décima, en mai. Les conservateurs sont en baisse de six points, avec 23 pour cent, les libéraux détiennent 18 pour cent et les néo-démocrates huit pour cent.

Bear in mind that this is a small sample - a few hundred, so the margin of error is large - and that the poll was conducted at the worst possible moment for Harper (I don't think foreign affairs will be decisive in Quebec or elsewhere).

But the Tories have taken a hit. It looks like about 1 Quebec voter in 20 switched from Conservative to BQ.

----

Harper has said many times that he will take positions according to what he thinks is best for the country. He just may not want to spend his time going around the country explaining himself.

[Bakunin]

I think it was enough to slow down the momentum, i don't know if it can give it to another party though. Its too soon to know how it will affect him in the future. Even with that mistake, i think its clear he has very good analysts that tell him exactly what is the temperature in quebec, i wouldn't be surprised if he react if things get ugly in the weeks to come.

However, I am very far from a liberal supporter but i have to say that Ignatieff looks like an excellent choice for them. I wouldn't be surprised if we get another minority government however its too soon to tell.