Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Under The Table Cloth

Rather than debate the details of the NDP Interim Leader Nycole Turmel story, I think the potential political importance is more a macro-level consideration. There is a wider narrative developing, with each successive "tension" the idea that the NDP are playing footsie with sovereigntists cements itself. We can debate the merits of each pursuit, but there is now NO question that the NDP will be subjected to continued scrutiny, this theme won't disappear.

Let's keep it real here, the NDP have been actively courting the soft nationalist vote for years, noted here and elsewhere, this isn't a revelation, but part of a well thought out political strategy. Obviously successful, it is however a bit laughable to think increased stature doesn't result in a more substantive debate about what certain policy adaptions mean, what certain relationships say about the nature of appeal, fair questions, particularly for the Official Opposition. In fact, I would argue, there was a certain prior "free ride" flavour that didn't quite digest the consequence of political expediency and we are only now catching up.

Appointing an Interim Leader with past ties to separatist entities is a fairly major blunder, but not entirely surprising given consistent political motivations. Since the election, the NDP have shrewdly- in most regards- worked to solidify their Quebec support, ensuring their success has some permanence rather than a historical fad. It is this mentality that puts a rookie MP from Quebec in the top job, it's this idea of firming up Quebec that leads Layton and company to settle on her name. However, it is also this almost singular focus which fails to note a fairly obvious pitfall within the strategy. Again, not to debate the details that are frankly irrelevant, it's simply a bad move to have any association to the Bloc presented to English Canada. I doubt today's storyline has any consequence in Quebec, but Nycole Turmel represents an unnecessary self inflicted wound elsewhere, red flags self-evident. Apparently, the NDP's Quebec-first zeal has lead to amateurish consideration and provided openings for opponents. Should the rest of Canada start to see the NDP moving from its traditional base to a Quebec-first entity, real erosion could occur, of that emerging vulnerability I have no doubt. The NDP are feeding that potential liability here, this isn't a blame your attacker scenario, but a sober realization that you've failed to see an easily ascertained danger, and in so doing perpetuated a narrative that does you no favours.

16 comments:

Greg said...

Tempest meet teapot. A perfect story for the day after the American economy committed suicide. I guess the Conservatives would rather talk about something else.

Steve V said...

This angle has legs.

Greg said...

Of course it does. It is fun and not as depressing as the coming economic disaster. Dmitri Soudas is laughing his ass off.

DL said...

Dmitri Soudas btw supports the ADQ (as do most Quebec if not all Quebec Tories) provincially. The ADQ is a separatist party that enthusiastically backed the Yes side in the 1995 referendum. Of course that didn't stop Harper from trying to get the ADQ separatist Mario Dumont from being his "Quebec Lieutenant".

Of course let's not even get into Paul Martin's "right hand man" in Quebec Jean Lapierre who co-founded the BQ with Lucien Bouchard and actively campaigned for the Yes side in 1995 as well.

If every party started a witch hunt of people with past separatist ties in Quebec - they would be left with NO ONE to run for them.

Steve V said...

It's not a witchhunt to bring this to people's attention. From my perspective, it's really a study in failing to realize pitfalls, because you were to pre-occupied with appearances.

sharonapple88 said...

Obviously successful, it is however a bit laughable to think increased stature doesn't result in a more substantive debate about what certain policy adaptions mean, what certain relationships say about the nature of appeal, fair questions, particularly for the Official Opposition.

Speaking of putting the NDP under the microscope, Kady O'Malley brought up something interesting with respects to the story. The online membership form for the NDP requires people to read the NDP Member Declaration, which asks people not to hold membership in two different federal parties. At least it asks people this in English, it doesn't make the same request in French. Accident, or telling omission?

Dmitri Soudas btw supports the ADQ (as do most Quebec if not all Quebec Tories) provincially. The ADQ is a separatist party that enthusiastically backed the Yes side in the 1995 referendum. Of course that didn't stop Harper from trying to get the ADQ separatist Mario Dumont from being his "Quebec Lieutenant".

The ADQ say that they're not separatists but that they support asymmetrical federation, a position the federal NDP also endorses. If the ADQ is a separatist party, then does this make the NDP one? ;)

Of course let's not even get into Paul Martin's "right hand man" in Quebec Jean Lapierre who co-founded the BQ with Lucien Bouchard and actively campaigned for the Yes side in 1995 as well.

Lapierre was on the "No" side in the 1980 referendum, and he didn't campaign as far as I know in the 1995 referendum (which allows him to dodge the question on which side he supported. The fact he doesn't provide an answer is telling). Anyway, Lapierre was held with suspicion with people like The Calgary Grit.

Steve V said...

sharon

Hmmm, that's interesting. One part about this story, if this is no big whoop, why is she resigning her membership in the provincial Quebec Solidaire today??

DL said...

"The ADQ say that they're not separatists but that they support asymmetrical federation, a position the federal NDP also endorses. If the ADQ is a separatist party, then does this make the NDP one?"

ummm....the ADQ actively endorsed the Yes option in the 1995 referendum and Dumont ACTIVELY addressed rallies exhorting people to vote Yes. That strikes me as crossing a pretty gigantic line. In contrast, Nycole Turmel voted NO in both referenda and the NDP was part of the NO Committee in both referenda.

I assume she will let her membership in QS lapse because while it would be a non-issue for a backbencher to support QS provincially, in her role as interim leader of the party its probably not appropriate to be a member of a provincial party. it would be like Stephen Harper having a membership with the Wild Rose Alliance.

Steve V said...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/08/turmels-not-alone.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

sharonapple88 said...

One part about this story, if this is no big whoop, why is she resigning her membership in the provincial Quebec Solidaire today??

Good question. Being the member of one separatist party is bad, two is worse.

ummm....the ADQ actively endorsed the Yes option in the 1995 referendum and Dumont ACTIVELY addressed rallies exhorting people to vote Yes. That strikes me as crossing a pretty gigantic line. In contrast, Nycole Turmel voted NO in both referenda and the NDP was part of the NO Committee in both referenda.

If that's damning -- the fact that the ADQ supported the Yes side in the 1995 -- what about the NDP MPs who did the same? Now this was over 15 years ago, this doesn't automatically make them separatists, but it's not safe to assume that they're federalists either. In the case of both, it appears as though they've slid into supporting asymmetrical federation. (Personally, not a fan of asymmetrical federation.)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/08/turmels-not-alone.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I do declare, I'm shocked. Shocked, I say. ;)

DL said...

"If that's damning -- the fact that the ADQ supported the Yes side in the 1995 -- what about the NDP MPs who did the same?"

None of them were NDP MPs (or even party members I suspect) at the time.

I think that anytime anyone who was once supporting Quebec sovereignty changes their mind and becomes a supporter of federalism - we should applaud and welcome those people. I'm prepared to believe Liberals like Lapierre when he claims he is no longer a sovereignist and I will also believe Tories like Dumont and his ADQ acolytes when they say that his campaign for the Yes side in 1995 was a big mistake.

In contrast to all of these people Turmel voted NON in both referenda.

sharonapple88 said...

Hmmm, that's interesting. One part about this story, if this is no big whoop, why is she resigning her membership in the provincial Quebec Solidaire today??

Found another possible reason for this. During the election, Turmel said she supported Quebec Solidaire before it declared itself a sovereigntist party -- before 2006. (The party's platform is here (the last one is a declaration of being a sovereigntist party) and here.) Well, if she was a current member, she basically lied about this. At the time she knew that this was potentially politically toxic.

Interesting take in the situation in the Star. Why take out membership for the Bloc for a friend if the friend in question wasn't facing a contested nomination?

Tof KW said...

"Turmel said she supported Quebec Solidaire before it declared itself a sovereigntist party..."

Oh that's complete bullshit. And I can confirm this as someone who lived in la belle back in the late 80's/early 90's, back when there was still a Quebec NDP running in provincial elections.

Everyone knew the Quebec NDP was pro-sovereignty, so much so that they let a former FLQ member run for them in a by-election (eventually became party leader too). That was the last straw for the federal NDP, who forced their provincial counterparts to break all ties and their change name to Parti de la Democratie Socialiste.

PDS later merged with another pro-sovereignty party to create Quebec Solidaire. Two separatist parties merged and become... surprise... a separatist party.

If Turmel didn't know QS was a separatist party, she's either lying or clinically stupid.

Also QS is still code for the Quebec NDP in the province, so don't be surprised if more federal NDP MPs turn out to have QS ties.

sharonapple88 said...

Also QS is still code for the Quebec NDP in the province, so don't be surprised if more federal NDP MPs turn out to have QS ties.

Like Alexander Boulerice, also the Treasury Board critic.

DL said...

Why wouldn't NDPers from Quebec have ties to QS? QS is the ONLY left of centre provincial party in Quebec. Who else do you expect them to support? Jean Charest?

The reason why QS was formed in the first place was by people who had been in the Parti Quebecois who felt that the PQ was putting too much emphasis on sovereignty and not enough on reducing social inequalities. QS was intended to be a party that put social justice issues first and the national question a distant second (the opposite of the PQ). If i lived in Quebec I would vote for them - there is literally NO other alternative if you are a progressive federalist.

sharonapple88 said...

The reason why QS was formed in the first place was by people who had been in the Parti Quebecois who felt that the PQ was putting too much emphasis on sovereignty and not enough on reducing social inequalities.

Quebec Solidaire appears to want both -- social issues and soverignty. According to Quebec Solidaire's website, with their first mandate they want to work on a referendum question.

From the website:

"During its first mandate, Québec solidaire will set out to achieve sovereignty in Québec by holding a general election to establish a Constituent Assembly. [....] The Constituent Assembly’s proposals will be submitted to Québecers in the form of a referendum, which will address two distinct issues: the political and constitutional future of Québec; and a Québec constitution."

If i lived in Quebec I would vote for them - there is literally NO other alternative if you are a progressive federalist.

There are some ideas I like about Quebec Solidaire -- five week vacation! -- but they're not the only progressive choice in Quebec. There's always the Green party of Quebec. Quebec Solidaire asked them to merge with them, but they're still an independent party. They've never taken an apparent stand on the position of Quebec independence, although they have run candidates who are against the idea.

Patrick Daoust, the Green Party of Quebec candidate, gave an interesting answer to the question of Quebec independence in the article:

"PA: I personally don’t think Quebec should be partitioned. I think that would just be further division and divisiveness. I would just like to make clear, on the question of sovereignty, the Green Party has not taken either a “for” or “against” stance. I personally believe this is the best approach to take, and I will tell you why. If I were to be elected as the member for Westmount-St. Louis, I am not here to sell people their cultural identity. That is something that is deeply personal, and you can’t through politics sell people their culture.If people tell me they want to remain in Canada, I will bring this back to the National Assembly, and properly express it and defend their interests. One sad thing in the history of Quebec politics, since I was born, is that parties divide up the entire political spectrum – if you’re sovereignist or federalist – and all other questions are put [by] the wayside."