Showing posts with label Bloc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bloc. Show all posts

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Coalition Steve

Fourteen years ago Stephen Harper co-authored a passionate plea for electoral reform and coalitions - including one with the Bloc. . . CBC's Terry Milewski has unearthed a position paper written by Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan in 1997 on the necessity of forming a coalition of conservative parties in order to overcome the "benign dictatorship" of a century of predominantly Liberal governments. . . .

Well we know how that worked out for the PC Tories - a not very benign coup by the Reform Party. But what's interesting is their acknowledgement of the Bloc/ separatists/ Quebec nationalists as necessary partners in their gaining and maintaining power in the past :
"Brian Mulroney swept to victory in 1984 by allying with Quebec separatists"
and the future :

ALONG THE TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY FROM CALGARY TO BANFF lies a prominent mountain called The Three Sisters. Legend has it that an Indian chief placed each of his three daughters on a separate peak to keep them away from unworthy suitors. The strategy succeeded so well that the three daughters died up there. Canadian conservatism is also a family of three sisters fated to perish in isolation unless they descend from their mountain tops and embrace more realistic expectations.

After the next federal election, Canadian conservatives may begin to encourage limited cooperation between Reform and the PCs, leading to a system of sister parties.

Both the Reform party and the Bloc Quebecois, or even the PCs, could go on for decades without ever becoming national parties; and through their survival as regional parties they could prevent the emergence of a national conservative party.
The lack of any strategic alliance among the sister parties, argues Steve and Tom, leads to "a war of attrition" among them due to our first-past-the-post system.
In the longer term, however, and assuming that Quebec remains in Canada, the alliance would find it hard to form a stable government without some Quebec support. On that basis, a strategic alliance of Quebec nationalists with conservatives outside Quebec might become possible, and it might be enough to sustain a government.

None of this will be easy or even likely. But experience shows that a monolithic conservative party is unworkable; so conservatives who are unhappy with a one-party-plus system featuring the Liberals as the perpetual governing party may have little choice but to construct an alliance, at least of the two anglophone sisters, and perhaps ultimately including a third sister.

... Quebec nationalism, while not in itself a conservative movement, appeals to the kinds of voters who in other provinces support conservative parties. The Bloc Quebecois is strongest in rural Quebec, among voters who would not be out of place in Red Deer, except that they speak French rather than English.

It may be that the third sister can never be brought back in. In the last century, Quebec nationalists, content with provincial autonomy and cultural preservation, could participate in Sir John A. Macdonald's Liberal-Conservative Party -- a single party in name but a coalition in substance, always with a strong "Quebec lieutenant." But now that Quebec nationalists have discovered sovereignty, they may never again see merit in a conservative coalition."
How to fix this. What follows is a passionate plea for electoral reform and proportional representation like they have in Europe.
Our parliamentary government creates a concentrated power structure out of step with other aspects of society. For Canadian democracy to mature, Canadian citizens must face these facts, as citizens in other countries have, and update our political structures to reflect the diverse political aspirations of our diverse communities.

Only in politics do we still entrust power to a single faction expected to prevail every time over the opposition by sheer force of numbers. Even more anachronistically, we persist in structuring the governing team like a military regiment under a single commander with almost total power to appoint, discipline and expel subordinates.
Some - *cough* - more than others.
Among major democracies, only Great Britain so ruthlessly concentrates power.

In most of the rest of Europe, proportional representation ensures that coalition governments routinely form cabinets. ... In New Zealand, which used to have a Canadian-style system of concentrated power, the voters rebelled against alternating Labour party and National party dictatorships: electoral reform now ensures coalition cabinets.

Modernizing Canadian politics would not only be good for conservatism, it might be the key to Canada's survival as a nation.
It's a fascinating read. And as a bonus - sure to outrage the Con cheerleaders who bought into Steve's current coalition monkey.
Yet I wonder if part of Harper's enraged obsession around "coalitions with separatists" is due to his feeling betrayed by the "third sister" he once envisioned as part of a conservative coalition. . . .

Many thanks to Kev in comments below for the Milewski link.
.

Monday, May 03, 2010

The Bloc! Booga booga!

The Sun :
"The Tories’ house leader Jay Hill told QMI Agency the government has not agreed to allow members of the Bloc to review confidential documents related to the transfer of Afghan detainees."
Haven't said no; haven't said yes.
"Bloc MPs would "have to swear allegiance to Canada and the Queen" if they want access to sensitive information, said Manitoba Tory MP James Bezan.
"If they are not prepared to do that, then I don’t see any way that we can give them the documents," he said."
Take it away, M. Duceppe... (h/t Maclean's)



I'm really fed up with the Cons' sly frogbashing and the anglo media ignoring the Bloc altogether unless it's to remind everyone of how the Bloc was part of the really scary coalition to replace Steve. Gosh, looking back on it, how terrible for Canada that would have been.

As someone who watches parliamentary committees on a regular to sporadic basis, I can tell you that many issues concerning social justice and individual freedom would get scant airing in committee if not for the dogged and fearless determination of Bloc committee members to ask hard questions of witnesses and not dither away their time scoring meaningless political points like our friend Bezan here. And they don't take any crap from anyone. Would they were a federalist party; I'd probably vote for them.
.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Harper's CTV Christmas Special

I tuned in ten minutes late for Steve's hour long CTV Christmas Special and over the course of five minutes he said :
"There's no justification for trying to suggest that Canadians would put into power a coalition where the Bloc Quebecois would have a veto over the affairs of the country."
"Having the Bloc Quebecois have a veto over the decisions of a national government would be very dangerous for the long run interests of the country."
"Government cannot function if it is always looking over its shoulder to see if the Bloc Quebecois will veto."
"Canadians did not vote for the Bloc to have a veto over the government."

Dear Steve
Allow me to quote from the Coalition's Accord, signed by the three opposition party leaders including Gilles Duceppe on Dec 1:
"The [Coalition] Government will not request a dissolution of Parliament during the term of this agreement, except following defeat on an explicitly-framed motion of nonconfidence presented by the Opposition...[that would be you, Steve]... or any vote pertaining to the speech from the throne; or on a budget vote at on any stage in the House; or on any bill to implement a budget at any stage in the House; or on any motion in the House to concur in, restore or reinstate any Estimates; or on any supply bill at any stage in the House.
The Bloc Québécois will neither move nor will it support any motions of nonconfidence in the Government during the term of its support for this agreement, and will vote in favour of the Government’s position with respect to all matters referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph."

Could that be any clearer? The agreement actually binds the Bloc to vote with the coalition on all matters of confidence and to support all budgets, throne speeches and money bills.

Steve knows this of course, but he went on Corporate Television Vehicle™ and bullshitted the Canadian public about it four distinct times anyway, because presumably he hopes to unite the country behind him in a little redneck frog bashing. Fucking appalling. And neither host, Lloyd Robertson nor Robert Fife, called him on it.

Thursday, December 04, 2008

HarperCons : Well, it's different when we do it

From Harper's televized election campaign ad to the nation tonight :
"The opposition is attempting to impose this deal without your say, without your consent and without your vote. This is no time for backroom deals with the separatists. A coalition with separatists cannot help Canada."

Tuesday, CTV : Stockwell Day, Minister of Hyperbole :
"The brutal fact here is that something has happened that has never happened before in Canadian history. And that is two federal leaders have actually signed a deal with a separatist party whose goal it is to destroy the country."


Wednesday, G&M : Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance
"A document obtained by The Globe and Mail shows that the scheme would have propelled then Alliance leader Stockwell Day to power in the coalition

The Bloc Québécois was part of secret plotting in 2000 to join a formal coalition with the two parties that now make up Stephen Harper's government.
At the time, the Alliance was ready to fly Mr. Day from his BC riding to Calgary to pick up Mr. [Joe] Clark on the way to Ottawa, where the deal was to be presented to the Governor-General in the event of a minority Parliament."

Wednesday, The Star : Stockwell Day : "My DNA would never allow me to do a deal with the socialists and my heart would never allow me to do a deal with the separatists," Day said, claiming he never saw or heard about the document until last night.

But minutes later, a BQ official handed out the letter sent by Day.
It proposed "a new consensus government" that would be led by "Stockwell Day as Prime Minister of Canada."
It referenced talks that had been held on ministers' jobs, a speech from the throne, and what support the BQ would provide, as well as Joe Clark, then-leader of the PC party."

Plus there was Harper's own attempted deal with the Bloc in 2004 when he was trying to unseat the minority government of Paul Martin.

And yet somehow the HarperCons expect us to be appalled and frightened that the present coalition is doing out in plain sight of everyone the same thing the Cons did in secret.

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

The separatists are coming! The separatists are coming!

Late in from a media-free day at work and I'm cooking and trying to catch up with the late news on the TV in the next room - all in all the less than ideal conditions under which most Canadians receive their news - and this is what I hear : blah blah separatists blah blah socialists blah blah Bloc blah separatists, separatists, separatists ... And I'm guessing that's all that much of the rest of Canada heard today too.


Seriously, what's with all this nonsense about separatists? We know why Harper is doing it - re-inflating himself by sowing discord as usual - but what the fuck was with the rest of you wanker pundits smirking and rolling your eyes on CPAC tonight?


The Bloc is a regional party looking out for Quebec interests. Less than a third of people who vote Bloc support separation. Their platform strongly promotes worker's rights, the Kyoto Accord, same-sex marriage, the right to abortion, decriminalization of marijuana, and was vehemently opposed to any Canadian participation in the Iraq War. They're social democrats.
So it's pretty clear why the Cons fear them. What's your excuse?

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

A month of non-confidence

Today's vote of non-confidence :
Mr. Layton (Toronto—Danforth) : April 02, 2008
"That, in the opinion of the House, the Conservative government's massive corporate tax cuts are destroying any balance between taxes for large profitable corporations and ordinary Canadians; they are stripping the fiscal capacity of the federal government; they are disproportionately benefiting the financial, oil and gas sectors, while leaving others behind, including manufacturing and forestry; and in so doing have failed to invest in those hard-hit sectors and the needs of everyday working Canadians; therefore, this House has lost confidence in the government."

Defeated 198-63, with only the NDP and Bloc Quebecois supporting it.

Liberals opposed the motion because they said it reflects an outdated, doctrinaire refusal to recognize that cutting corporate taxes helps make the country more competitive.
During the last election, Dion promised to match and exceed the Cons on cutting corporate taxes.

On March 10 the NDP tabled a non-confidence motion against the Cons for failing to respect international climate agreements and for its refusal to adopt legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Only 11 Liberals voted for it.
On March 4 the Con's Budget 2008, an automatic confidence vote, passed with 11 Liberals voting and the rest abstaining.


Not to be left out, on March 5 the Liberals tabled a motion of non-confidence of their own -- against the opposition parties - the NDP and the Bloc - presumably for not being sufficiently supportive of the Liberals' support of the Cons.

Blog Archive