Charest's Great Flame-Out?

Jean Charest has never really lived up to the hype that surrounded his early career. If he's really really going to trigger an election over his huge tax cuts (courtesy of Harper's generosity) I think he'll go down. I don't know whether the people of Quebec want tax cuts badly or not, I don't know if he's offering the kinds of tax cuts they want, but I cannot imagine anyone is eager for back-to-back elections. Charest will get blamed over this and he will go down in an early election. Either that or Mario Dumont may get to be premier. One way or the other, I think we are witnessing the last act of Charest's career.


(Picture: Jacques Boissinot/CP)

Never play poker with this man

Sarkozy has won the French presidency. What a poker face this man has. This is his "I won the election" face. I'm not sure if anyone else in politics is quite this emotionally opaque.

Does his election, along with Mario Dumont's popularity in Quebec, signal some kind of neo-liberal moment in la francophonie. I suppose it will take time to figure that out, but it may indicate something akin to Thatcher and Reagan 25 years ago. Or it may not.

Or He Could Do Both

John Ibbitson (apparently this is my week to pick on him) set up a false dichotomy in Wednesday's paper (subscription required):

"Mr. Dumont could use his new power to prod Liberal Premier Jean Charest into revolutionizing Quebec's economy, or he could drag Quebec society back toward its dark past."

So in Ibbitson's mind, this is an either/or proposition. Either Dumont will weaken Quebec's unions and attempt to increase economic competitiveness or he will attempt to return the province to the parochial vision of Maurice Duplessis.

It may come as a surprise to someone who hasn't studied politics ever, but many right-wing politicians have managed to package free market reforms, social conservatism and parochial nationalism into a single package. I see no indication that Dumont would somehow feel bound to choose between economic policy and social policy.

To put it another way, I hardly think that Dumont feels the need to choose between the parts of his platform that Ibbitson likes (economic reforms) and those that he does not like (social reforms) in order to allow Ibbitson to more easily characterize Dumont as "good" or "bad" for Quebec.
Picture: Maurice Duplessis

John Ibbitson's Imaginary(?) Foes of Tolerance

In reading all the Quebec election fallout I came across John Ibbitson's column (subscription required) on prejudice in Canada. His opening words are thus:

"If there's one thing that yesterday's Quebec election proved, it's that intolerance remains a force in Canadian politics. To their everlasting disgrace, too many urban intellectuals have chosen to reinforce it."

Okay, yes, intolerance has always been a political force, and yes Ibbitson is right to suggest that it played a role for Mario Dumont. The other part of his column is a bit more confusing. Who are these "urban intellectuals" anyway? What are they doing? He cites elsewhere in the article unnamed "feminists" who might oppose Muslim women in traditional dress. He is unable or unwilling to name any specific organizations or individuals. Instead he puts up this incredibly weak suggestion that "too many" of these "urban intellectuals" reinforce rural intolerance. Who, John? And how?

This is the sort of thing that fits with the worst stereotypes of urban-dwellers. We don't sit around figuring out what values to reinforce among country-folk. We're in Toronto - we're too busy being self-absorbed, remember?