Helpful Jack (or should that be Jacques?)

Jack finds common ground with his newfound (if perhaps temporary) compatriots from Quebec, by accepting the prospect of 50 per cent plus 1 as the benchmark for Quebec sovereignty

news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/26 … ne-layton/

theglobeandmail.com/news/pol … le2036013/

As a Canadian, I will never accept a separated Canada even if it means a 50% or more in the future referendum if there’s one.

Layton, you’re a traitor.

I think we would have to respect the 50% plus one but only if the question asks for secession. None of this discussing sovereignty-association BS. If they decide to go, then they go, but everything after that becomes nation to nation negotiation. The Clarity Act says that the question has to be clear - no ambiguity.

Still Layton is now in the difficult position, which we knew he would be, of having to placate some of the people from Quebec. Not sure where the 60 or seats will go next election but the NDP will lucky to hold on to many.

Like Chretien said a month ago, perhaps the NDP are still confused about the clarity of the act…

So he’s trying to hold on to power as leader of the official opposition in expense of Canada’s sovereignty? Trying to keep the 59 Quebec seats they have now is worth putting Canada’s territorial integrity at risk? Wow…

Yeah, Layton is in a very difficult position…

[quote=“Smurfette”]Like Chretien said a month ago, perhaps the NDP are still confused about the clarity of the act…

So he’s trying to hold on to power as leader of the official opposition in expense of Canada’s sovereignty? Wow…[/quote]

Well if nothing else it’s probably good news for the Liberals, will give them cause for hope for their four years in the wilderness.

With more moves like this from Mr. Layton, his party will certainly find that those levels of popularity of the past will one day be revisited again.

Jack:
STFU
Even Quebec doesn’t want to hear about it.
Let alone NDP supporters like me, who if it comes to be will send lawyers, guns and money to the 49.9%

Then what about the other 49%? Tell them to kiss goodbye to Canada while in Quebec or make them move? ಠ_ಠ

Seriously, we just destroyed Duceppe and the BQ a few weeks ago. Do we seriously need another Duceppe and the BQ?

Just glad I didn’t ride myself into this “Orange Surge” last election.

[quote=“PLA”]

Then what about the other 49%? Tell them to kiss goodbye to Canada while in Quebec or make them move? ಠ_ಠ[/quote]

That is what I have always found faulty about the whole separatist game and I call it a game. Many are using the threat of separation as a means to get as much out of Ottawa as possible. I am not sure how many are seriously thinking that they would be better off as a separate nation.

At the same time, I wonder how Quebec would respond to people, especially First Nations people, who might ask for their own self-government or how they would respond to regions that border Ontario, New Brunswick or Labrador wishing to remain part of Canada.

That’s why the referendum has to be clear that they are talking about complete separation not some muddled pie in the sky dream that the sovereignists think will pass but the rest of Canada would not accept.

I can’t believe we are really worried about this. The Bloc was handed a crushing defeat by a federalist party. We should be thanking Jack not telling him to harden his stance and drive Quebec back to the Bloc.

If you’re thinking that Jack had much to do with the “crushing defeat” of the Bloc then you had best ask for your money back from Poli Sci class.

Quebec parked their votes there for now, as always seeking the best deal, they’ll drop Jacque like some hot poutine as soon as the next option comes along.

[quote=“Smurfette”]

If you’re thinking that Jack had much to do with the “crushing defeat” of the Bloc then you had best ask for your money back from Poli Sci class.

Quebec parked their votes there for now, as always seeking the best deal, they’ll drop Jacque like some hot poutine as soon as the next option comes along.[/quote]

There were two major factors (that I can see) for Quebec choosing the NDP. The first is the PQ and the BQ trying to hold Quebec hostage to another referendum. What I am talking about was when Pauline Marois came out and said if they were elected they’d work with the Bloc to bring about another referendum. If Quebec was serious about wanting to separate they would have voted Bloc. The second was Jack and the NDP. The NDP got their boost in Quebec right after Jack appeared on Tout le monde en parle and to say that Jack didn’t have much to do with the defeat of the Bloc is ludicrous. He had everything to do with it. Supporting things like bill 101 is what made the NDP so attractive in Quebec. Both the Bloc and NDP are social democrats. Their big policy differences are over the sovereignty of Quebec.

Also, the adoption of the Sherbrooke Declaration is old news (they did that back in 2006). The NDP has been playing a long term game in Quebec since Jack was elected, and has been courting the soft nationalist vote for along time. It’s just that they finally broke through. Now do I think that Jack deserves all of the credit for winning those 59 seats? No! But were the disenchanted Bloc voters going to go to the Conservatives? No, most of Quebec and Bloc voters aren’t conservative. Were they going to go to the Liberals? No, they blew their chance. Like I already said, the Bloc and NDP aren’t very far apart politically, and it wasn’t a very far jump between the two.

[quote=“DonGiovanni”]

If you’re thinking that Jack had much to do with the “crushing defeat” of the Bloc then you had best ask for your money back from Poli Sci class.

Quebec parked their votes there for now, as always seeking the best deal, they’ll drop Jacque like some hot poutine as soon as the next option comes along.

There were two major factors (that I can see) for Quebec choosing the NDP. The first is the PQ and the BQ trying to hold Quebec hostage to another referendum. What I am talking about was when Pauline Marois came out and said if they were elected they’d work with the Bloc to bring about another referendum. If Quebec was serious about wanting to separate they would have voted Bloc. The second was Jack and the NDP. The NDP got their boost in Quebec right after Jack appeared on Tout le monde en parle and to say that Jack didn’t have much to do with the defeat of the Bloc is ludicrous. He had everything to do with it. Supporting things like bill 101 is what made the NDP so attractive in Quebec. Both the Bloc and NDP are social democrats. Their big policy differences are over the sovereignty of Quebec.

Also, the adoption of the Sherbrooke Declaration is old news (they did that back in 2006). The NDP has been playing a long term game in Quebec since Jack was elected, and has been courting the soft nationalist vote for along time. It’s just that they finally broke through. Now do I think that Jack deserves all of the credit for winning those 59 seats? No! But were the disenchanted Bloc voters going to go to the Conservatives? No, most of Quebec and Bloc voters aren’t conservative. Were they going to go to the Liberals? No, they blew their chance. Like I already said, the Bloc and NDP aren’t very far apart politically, and it wasn’t a very far jump between the two.[/quote]

Well if his strategy is to court the nationalist vote (with some unusual reversals of past practices) and in the process antagonize the remainder of the voting pool, then I suspect that the NDP will soon be counting many many less seats in the Commons by the time the next election results are counted (Maybe Nathan Cullen will get a half decent position then).

I suspect that this strategy was a part of the orange Wave that a good many Canadian voters outside of Quebec weren’t particularly aware of, with the newfound knowledge in place, it will be a low tide for the Orange Waves,

Some additional reading on the topic.

fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 … eparatist/

Soft nationalists and sovereignists aren’t the same thing. Soft nationalism are things like making French the working language in Quebec federally regulated offices and preserving the French language within Canada. Not exactly terrible things.

Taking a turn in the debate for a second, here’s a pretty in depth article on Jack Layton, fairly interesting and offers some good insight to the guy with something for both the converted and the skeptic.

theglobeandmail.com/news/pol … 265/page1/

Now that Jack is apparently of a tad more importance on the national scene, it seems more than a few of his more fanciful projects are coming under a bit more study.

Especially his sudden pandering to the “soft nationalist” collective

fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 … or-quebec/

While I’m not going to doubt that, I don’t think we should dismiss their primary objective of splitting Canada in to two. And speaking of game, the only guy who’s playing the separatist game is Layton.

QFT

[quote=“Smurfette”]

Now that Jack is apparently of a tad more importance on the national scene, it seems more than a few of his more fanciful projects are coming under a bit more study.

Especially his sudden pandering to the “soft nationalist” collective

fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 … or-quebec/[/quote]

Smurfette, that was the second time you shared a link to a comment on the National Post website. Both of the comments came from conservative leaning authors. Rex Murphy, the Don Cherry of canadian politics, can be considered a moderate conservative but Gunter, an alumni of the Alberta Report with Stephen Harper, is probably waiting for our country to split so he can advocate what he really wants: a merger of Western Canada with the US so he can get a job at Fox News. In my opinion, people like Gunter cherish canadian unity as much as the Bloc Quebecois!

Now, there is nothing wrong with posting opinion pieces. But maybe you should include the following sentence before the link: “this is the article that influenced my already conservative opinion” :smile:

As if most members’ political views in this forum are deeply influenced by the NDP, in which a few of those are members of that left-wing party.

Just pointing it out.

But anyway, where’s the commentary from the socialist-leaning authors? The Tyee? The Straight? Pretty quiet…

[quote=“BigThumb”]

[quote=“Smurfette”]

Now that Jack is apparently of a tad more importance on the national scene, it seems more than a few of his more fanciful projects are coming under a bit more study.

Especially his sudden pandering to the “soft nationalist” collective

fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 … or-quebec/[/quote]

Smurfette, that was the second time you shared a link to a comment on the National Post website. Both of the comments came from conservative leaning authors. Rex Murphy, the Don Cherry of canadian politics, can be considered a moderate conservative but Gunter, an alumni of the Alberta Report with Stephen Harper, is probably waiting for our country to split so he can advocate what he really wants: a merger of Western Canada with the US so he can get a job at Fox News. In my opinion, people like Gunter cherish canadian unity as much as the Bloc Quebecois!

Now, there is nothing wrong with posting opinion pieces. But maybe you should include the following sentence before the link: “this is the article that influenced my already conservative opinion” :smile:[/quote]

blah blah, blah blah, blah de blah, and your point is?

By the way noticed that there is also a wonderful puff job, hugs and kisses article about Saint Jack linked to in this thread, so if we may borrow a phrase from Fox News (since you brought them up) over all it seems that the thread may indeed be “fair and balanced”

Also we are talking about the same Rex Murphy ( the Don Cherry of Canadian politics ?) that works for that well known right wing news factory the CBC right?

My point is that canadian unity is as threatened by ultra-conservative, Sean Hannity style commentators as it is by left-wing Bloc Quebecois partisans. Both create a polarization of the country that, in my opinion, is detrimental. I have no problem with the western shift in the balance of power that happened during the last election. But the rise of the neo-cons that we saw in the states when Bush was president seems to have made big forays north of the border and that is worrisome.

If Harper and his majority government have a harder line with Quebec for policies that are truly for canadian unity, that is fair. But I’m afraid that some old Reform party policies will resurfaced and then we will see some very un-canadian things like getting rid some useful social programs. If you can’t see that trend or if you think that this is a good trend, then our definitions of “canadian” are different and there isn’t much I can do about this.