Archive for the ‘BLOC QUEBECOIS’ Tag

JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: A FALSE ARGUMENT ABOUT SUPPORTING SEPARATISM USED TO DEFEND ENDING CANADA’S PUBLIC SUPPORT OF POLITICAL PARTIES   Leave a comment

JOHN CHUCKMAN
 
POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN BY JEFFREY SIMPSON IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

Jeffrey Simpson, you just could not be more wrong on this matter.

Yes, there is an unintended consequence, but there are unintended consequences in every conceivable way of financing parties.

Private financing, in palate-loads delivered to loading docks, is the American system that has given them, quite simply, the best government that money can buy.

Did you know that the average American Senator spends literally two-thirds of his or her time trying to raise money?

Mrs Clinton, in her race for the New York Senate, spent $45 million, an amount which brought a gasp even from her easy-virtue hubby.

If you remember, Bill Clinton, when President, was selling nights in the Lincoln bedroom for gigantic campaign contributions.

Those giving large amounts of money always get something back, if only privileged entrance to the Senator or Representative.

We must weigh the unintended consequences of one method versus another for their pernicious qualities.

Public financing is important, and it is very much a measure of our devotion to democracy.

The BQ is a legitimate party, representing the views and interests of a fair number of people in Quebec, and it deserves the same treatment as any legitimate party.

Tilting the finance system is a cheap idea from someone desperate for a quick fix to our current political impasse. It is worse in my view than the suggestions you recently pooh-poohed of the Liberals and NDP merging or the Liberals getting rid of that sea-anchor of a leader, Ignatieff.

Separatism is fading, as anyone may observe, slowly but surely.

Why? Because people in Quebec now see that they are treated as an important part of the country and because young people have careers to get on with and because in-migrants to Quebec do not see separatism as a reason for coming to Canada and because native Quebecois, like all the world’s advanced people, have low birth rates.

Besides all of that, the BQ has acted mostly the part of a responsible party, albeit one with geographically-limited interests. That is more than can be said of Harper’s Conservatives on many issues of importance.

I sometimes find it slightly amusing to call the BQ a separatist party, given the nature of its day-in, day-out activity.

And, last but not least, doing what you recommend would only be viewed in Quebec as a targeted policy against Quebec’s interests, and indeed that view would be completely right.

Foolish column, Jeffrey Simpson, very foolish.

JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: ON IGNATIEFF’S FAILING TO BOOST DEMOCRACY AND SERVE AS PRIME MINISTER BY NOT SUPPORTING THE COALITION – WHY IGNATIEFF IS A POLITICAL ALBATROSS   Leave a comment

JOHN C HUCKMAN
 
POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN IN TORONTO’S GLOBE AND MAIL

“…he squandered a rare chance to strengthen our democracy…”

Absolutely.

And what is so amazing is the colossal ineffectiveness of the Liberals in allowing the Conservatives to repeat, over and over, the big lie that a coalition is not democratic, unparliamentary.

The truth is, of course, just the opposite.

They also let the dumb slur about deals with separatists prosper.

What hypocrisy, when Harper has never refused their support for something he wanted.

We’ve paid a price for the Liberals’ ineptitude, but I am glad Ignatieff will never be prime minister.

Nothing he has done or said proves he has the talents, the views, or the ethics for the office.

And when it comes to “strengthening democracy,” Ignatieff’s record in entirely in the opposite direction.

Parachuted back into our country, parachuted into his riding, and parachuted into the leadership – all with a charming record of public support for American aggression and imperialism.

And, on top of everything, he is simply boring as a speaker.

_______________

“@John Chuckman

“Ignatieff is . . boring as a speaker”

* * *

For those with attention-deficit problems, and inability to pay attention for more than 30 seconds to anything that isn’t shiny or makes loud noises.”

That’s a pretty pathetic effort at personal attack.

As someone who graduated with honors from University of Toronto, served as chief economist in a major corporation, published a book, published many essays, has had a column in a metropolitan newspaper, taught university courses, and doesn’t even turn on a television, I do think it fair to say the writer doesn’t know what she/he/it is talking about.

I have heard Ignatieff interviewed at length, and he is dull. No new ideas, no fresh thought, just a stream of words, and he secretly worships at the feet of the American Imperium. Then there’s the rather raspy voice and the sense one gets from him of never revealing what he really thinks.

And clearly it is not just my judgment.

He has completely and utterly failed to engage the Canadian people, and that miserable failure comes in the face of a political opponent as widely disliked as Harper.

Proof, if ever there were, of a man totally unsuited to his grasping ambition. He simply does not have the goods.

It really is tiresome to see Ignatieff defended by a small band of enthusiastic (and likely delusional) supporters for the supposed merit of being so impressive an intellectual.

First, I defy anyone to produce a truly original idea from Ignatieff. There aren’t any.

Of course, true intellectuals rarely if ever run for office.

And finally, politics simply is not about being intellectual. Being smart is important. Paul Martin is smart. Jean Chretien is smart. Harper is smart. Pierre Trudeau was very smart.

Ignatieff wrote books, not very interesting ones in my view, and he blubbered on television at lot – but those are precisely the talents of a David Frum or a thousand other talking heads.

Hardly the stuff of leadership.

__________________

“…why do the most ardent Harper supporters hate the BLOC so much?”

Simply because it has stood in the way of the Conservatives winning a majority.

Duceppe, despite his views on Quebec nationalism (and it is thanks to Mr. Harper that is a legitimate phrase in our national political dialogue), is an astute and capable politician, and I credit him with views that are in the finest traditions of Canada.

The absolute stupidity of Conservative arguments about coalition with separatists is demonstrated by several glaring facts.

First, the people represented by the Bloc are Canadians, and they have elected this party to represent them.

Second, we all have included the Bloc in national leadership debates.

Third, the party is a legitimate part of the Parliament of Canada.

Fourth, Mr. Harper uses their support whenever he can benefit by it.

Last, it was Mr. Harper who passed a formal resolution on Quebec as a nation within Canada.

Of course, if Conservatives wanted to be honest and consistent in this matter, they would oppose including the Bloc in debates. They would oppose admitting them to Parliament. And they would never accept their support on legislation.

But we don’t see any of that, do we?

It would be the death sentence for Conservatives in Quebec. Talk about hypocrisy, this is as rich as it gets.