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.

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?

Quebec

I won't be up late enough to see the bitter end of the Quebec election (I have to be up early tomorrow). Is anyone else going to call it before the polls close tonight?

In the end the big winner in this election may well be the rest of Canada. It seems as though Quebec may be standing down from the idea of eternal referendums.

History Lessons: Mulroney Edition

Stephen Harper has just delivered a windfall to Quebec. A windfall that will be converted to tax breaks by Jean Charest (assuming he wins). Let's go back in time 15 years or so: Why was Mulroney so hated by the end of his tenure as Prime Minister? Well there were lots of reasons, certainly his arrogance, his buddy-buddy relationship with US Presidents, but one of the things that really boiled blood in Canada was his perceived softness on Quebec.

I suppose maybe a Calgary-based guy like Harper can get away with some Quebec gifts (Nixon to China, blah blah) but I think he'll really be on thin ice if he's seen as being too nice to soft nationalists in Quebec.

Partition Nonsense Again

I really don't blog a lot about Quebec politics, because, well, I don't know a lot about the topic. That said, here I go again on Quebec politics. Charest apparently got caught in some sort of gaffe over partitioning Quebec after a hypothetical "Yes" vote on a referendum (HT). He says it was a slip of the tongue, but who knows? Once again I'd have to reiterate my point from yesterday: it might be emotionally satisfying for federalists to talk about partition of Quebec, but I cannot see it working.

What regions, municipalities, neighbourhoods would get to stay in Canada? How could the governments of Canada and a sovereign Quebec manage territory that would look like a bunch of patchwork farms on a political map? There are a variety of things that federalists can do to create disincentives for separatism, partition is not one of them.

Who is Pure Laine? Does it matter?

Paul Wells has pointed out a quote that might embarrass Stephen Harper with his new buddies, the soft-nationalists in Quebec:

"'Obviously, given the ethnic and sociocultural make-up of modern Quebec society, only the pure laine Quebecois could arguably be considered a people,' Harper, who was then the Reform Party MP for Calgary West, told the House of Commons on Dec. 11, 1995, during a debate on Quebec's right to self-determination.

"While they constitute a majority of the Quebec population, they do not constitute a majority in each region of Quebec. This produces a curious result, that if the Quebecois pure laine are a people and if they have a right to secede, they could not claim the right to territorial integrity."

Oh, well I can see how much fun that would be, sorting out what Montreal neighbourhoods we would need to partition. What constitutes a "region" in Harper's mind? Is Montreal a region? Is Westmount a region? Is every house where English is spoken a region? What about non-Pure Laine separatists? The BQ can win in Haitian neighbourhoods now, they have visible minorities as members. What about Maka Kotto, the Bloc MP who was born in Cameroon? Partition is a tempting tit-for-tat response to separatist threats, but that's about it.
Picture: Maka Kotto - Stephen Harper's head asplode!