Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Sovereignty..... the New Asbestos!

The collapse of the Bloc Quebecois and the recent implosion of the Parti Quebecois has filled newspaper columns across the country with expert opinions as to what exactly were the underlying circumstances that led to the shocking decline and fall of the sovereignist empire.

I have a bit of trouble taking these opinions seriously because none of these so-called experts  predicted any of this beforehand!
It's a bit like all those mavens on CNBC that explained why Wall Street collapsed... after the fact!

Before the last federal election, not one expert and pundit breathed a word about the imminent fall of separatist support, so I wouldn't put much stock in what they have to say today.
We all know about hindsight...

Public opinion has always been volatile in Quebec and prone to wild swings in direction, sometimes seemingly overnight. Predicting or explaining these 'virages' is an exercise is futility.

I've been asked on a number of occasions why these volatile political mood swings occur almost exclusively in Quebec.
After careful consideration it is my considered opinion that the phenomenon is based largely on media influence, which is much more focused and profound in Quebec, based on the limited media choices Quebeckers have.
Typically a Quebec French language TV news and information show will have six times as large an audience (on a pro-rated basis) as that of a comparable program on English Canadian TV.
Simply put, because of this narrow media exposure, Quebeckers are apt to change positions and reach a newly-formed consensus much more rapidly than English Canada.

It has been postulated by experts, more attuned than I, that Jack Layton's wildly popular appearance on a Radio-Canada, Sunday night talk-show, where he was fawned over by obliging  hosts, sealed the deal and concretisied the NDP victory in Quebec.

Years ago, my job as an operations manager had me travelling around Eastern Canada on an ongoing basis.
In Quebec I'd always ask the first francophone employee I met, which show they watched on TV last night. I then would use it as a conversation starter with all the people I'd meet during the day.
"Hello, what did you think of "LES FILLES DE CALEB?" Invariably, most had watched the same show the evening before!
You could never pull that off with English employees who have access to dozens of choices of original programming on a multitude of networks and thus are much more likely to be influenced by a much wider panoply of opinions.

**********************************

For as long as I can remember, Quebeckers have been proudly supportive of the Asbestos industry, a solid job provider and steady income producer.
But in a matter of a few short months that opinion has largely changed. A few negative television documentaries has had a devastating impact on public opinion. TV pundits, the few that there are, have gone negative on the subject.
Support for the industry has collapsed and is now relegated to those with vested interests and some self-delusional holdouts who maintain that the product remains safe and needs only a few safety tweaks to remain viable.

Sounds a bit like sovereignty doesn't it?
What was so good for so long is no longer in vogue.

Sovereignty, like asbestos, has had a precipitous fall from grace. A few unflattering documentaries, a few negative television shows and the sovereignty ideology that was a pillar for decades is now looked upon with disdain.
And so there is no road back for asbestos and there is no road back for sovereignty, they are relics of the past.
They may linger on for a few short years, but the writing is on the wall. 

We know that safety concerns is what is killing asbestos,  but I haven't heard a convincing argument as to what is killing sovereignty.

And so gentle reader, I offer you an alternative theory, which I shall transmit via an allegory, not quite the quality of Alice in Wonderland, but an honest attempt just the same; 

Imagine if you please, a young aspiring actor,  fresh from acting school, ready to conquer the world. 

With the enthusiasm of youth and the idealism of the uninitiated, she ventures out on auditions and casting calls, only to be disappointed time after time.  
She lands a few minor roles, which only serve to whet her appetite, while the big breakthrough that she's expecting, remains elusively around the corner. 

As much as she loves her craft, success is taking  too long. She becomes impatient and restless.
Then remarkably, after years of disappointment, she gets the role of a lifetime, but alas, is devastated when the show collapses in front of her eyes. 

After pulling herself together, she perseveres, convinced that if it almost happened once, it could happen again.

The years go by. She gets older and wiser. Her looks fade and the odds of her landing it big, become more and more remote.
Her dream is tattered but not dead.  She still burns with desire to succeed, but time is grinding her down. After another few months, realty sets in.
Not knowing any other life, she soldiers on for a time, but eventually loses her ardour. She misses a few auditions and then finally stops trying at all.
Tired and drained, beaten down by the years of disappointment, she comes to the sad realization which leads to a fateful decision;
"I love acting, but I just can't do this anymore. Dreams don't always come true and so it's time to move on. I'll always be an actor, but sadly, I'm done."

And so readers, 40% of the Quebeckers who are sovereigntists didn't become federalists overnight.
...They've just given up.

24 comments:

  1. "And so there is no road back for asbestos and there is no road back for sovereignty, they are relics of the past."

    If indeed media is responsible for the shift, then all it takes is an "yay for sovereignty" on Tv and in the papers and it'll be back. So don't dismiss it.

    I did notice too, how labile, emotionally unstable the voters of Qc are. Someone has actually compared them to hormone-ridden teenagers. Which makes one question if they can actually make the right, logical decision... So far so good.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm somewhat more skeptical than the first respondant. I still think separation is still simmering under the surface, not boiling over like it did for 40 years up until the last couple of years.

    Right now there is disillusionment, but there is nothing to prevent a rekindling of the spirit. Separation ebbed from the mid-80s to the mid-90s, and it resurrected.

    Just because the separatists right now feel like victims of a false doctrine doesn't mean there won't be a new generation of victims of another or identical false doctrine. Remember Linus Van Pelt from the Peanuts comics and his solemn belief in the Great Pumpkin. He never gave up the faith. You CAN fool ALL of the people SOME of the time.

    Personally, I'm still full of fight, and I still stand by making Quebec pay for the costs and aggravation they put to the rest of the country. Ontario right now is hurting yet Ontario is still the biggest net contributor to the equalization payment system. ONTARIO CAN'T AFFORD IT ANYMORE, or at least not at this time. Alberta, thanks to oil money can, but taunting them is only going to lead to their looking to separate, and right now they have the riches to do it. They're ripe for the picking, if thay play that card. I don't know if they'll succeed, but they can give it a good run for the money.

    Quebec, on the other hand, is beaten, battered and don't have the money to sustain themselves. What's just starting in Greece WILL happen in Quebec, especially if the political instability separation would cause is there to immensely aggravate the situation.

    Federal political campaigns against separation focused on the COSTS of separation, not on how nice a country Canada is, or the "trademark" an internationally well-respected Canada carries.

    Despite the cockeyed optimism the Editor has for the death of separatism, it's NOT dead, just ebbing again. I still see Quebec as a fiscal drag on the rest of us, and I cannot and will not accept laws that proclaim French as the only official language. Canada is a BILINGUAL country, even if only on paper, so either get with the program, or a federal party will come along to put Quebec in its place. The rest of us are tired of paying for it!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is somewhat off topic but some readers may be interested in the updated website of the "Quebec Office of the English Language" at:

    http://oqla.org/

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Ontario right now is hurting yet Ontario is still the biggest net contributor to the equalization payment system."

    Hmmmm.

    http://chroniclesofapurelaine.blogspot.com/2011/06/province-of-panhandlers-myth.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. "http://oqla.org/"

    La mission: preserve and promote the English language(sic).

    C'est une mauvaise blague ou quoi?

    J'envoie ma cotisation tout de go!

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Anon. at 2:55 PM:

    Regarding: http://chroniclesofapurelaine.blogspot.com/2011/06/province-of-panhandlers-myth.html

    It is interesting to note that the author, Michel Bolduc, removed all of the opposing arguments from "James" (or 6 out of 14 comments) from his blog posting. In this respect he is just like all of the other Quebecois nationalist bloggers. They censor all opinions that don't conform to their narrow-minded views.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "removed all of the opposing arguments from "James""

    James est grossié,agressif et impoli.Même politique de publication et de censure pour "No dogs".

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ Press 9:

    "James est grossié,agressif et impoli."

    Don't you realize this description also applies to you (quite exactly)?

    "Même politique de publication et de censure pour "No dogs"."

    "No Dogs" only removes overly insulting or profane posts. If he had the same censorship policy, none of your comments would be published at all.

    You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on the net, Press 9. You can't possibly be working. Do even take the time to wash, shave and brush your teeth?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "You can't possibly be working. Do even take the time to wash, shave and brush your teeth?"

    Êtes-vous le frère (ou la soeur) de James?

    Même si je passais 24/24 sur le web,en quoi cela vous regarde-t-il?

    De plus,si vous êtes en mesure de calculer mes interventions sur ce blogue,cela implique la condition sinequanone que vous y êtes aussi souvent que moi.Désolé de vous apprendre que vous n'êtes pas très fûté.

    Aurais-je touché une de vos cordes sensibles Mr.Donut?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "It is interesting to note that the author, Michel Bolduc, removed all of the opposing arguments from "James" (or 6 out of 14 comments) from his blog posting."

    The guy is really narrow-minded, and he's a spinster of Goebellian proportions. He's been censoring my posts for a few months now. He tends to delete all the posts that he deems inconvenient, a complete reverse of No Dogs who allows pretty much everything.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "He's been censoring my posts for a few months now."

    C'est simplement un contrôle de qualité.

    "No Dogs who allows pretty much everything."

    Vous en êtes la preuve.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ...to Editor: Would you be able to come up with a rebuttal to M. Bold Duck's insideous lies with statistics? One blatant thing I noticed he missed in his exposé is how much the "have" provinces are contributing in actual dollars to Quebec's cause. Bold Duck (BTW, that's an American pronunciation) seems to only use percentages, and certainly doesn't mention that despite lower percentages for Quebec still translates into larger dollar figures for Quebec--WAAAAAAYYYY larger dollar figures!

    Quebec may have 23% of the population, but what percentage of the equalization payments do they receive?

    Quebec may have 23% of the population, but Ontario has 39%. Ontario takes in half of ALL immigrants to Canada, Quebec about one-eighth, yet Quebec gets 35% of all immigration funding by the federal government, but Ontario gets only 1% more, i.e., 36%. That means Quebec takes in ¼ the immigrants Ontario takes in, yet they get almost exactly the same amount of money to do so.

    Quebec may have 23% of the population, but they're doled out 70% of Heritage Canada's money for street parties and festivals. That leaves 30% of the budget for 77% of the population.

    Quebec may have 23% of the population, but they get $4.75 for every dollar they kick into the E.I. program for job development. Ontario gets dollar-for-dollar, and no other provinces gets what Quebec gets. A little sweetheart deal Mulroney gave his buddy Bourassa back in the day.

    These and others were the bribes paid out by the federal system to Quebec, and just because Quebeckers pay higher taxes than most of the rest (I think only NF has higher), the taxes paid on extra services like $7-a-day daycare, Logirente, the government drug plan, QPIP, etc. still don't add up to the equalization payment top-up.

    Ohhhh...and lest we forget the refundable tax abatement the feds pay out on Quebec's federal tax return, an abatement not paid to the rest of us? Also, why do Quebeckers pay 27% less towards the E.I. program than the rest of us?

    http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t2204/t2204-10e.pdf

    Contributions exc. Quebec: Maximum $747.36 1.73%
    Quebec: Maximum $587.52 1.36%

    See section 2 of the above form. That difference means Quebec gets a 27% discount on their E.I. premiums! Why do they merit such a discount? I put that question to my new MP, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance over a month ago, and have yet to receive a response. Hmmmmmm.....

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous said...@11:11 PM

    ""No Dogs who allows pretty much everything."

    Vous en êtes la preuve."

    Au contraire sepperhead, while adski
    contributes to discussions, sepperheads don't!

    If our editor apllied a bullshit/racism/moron
    filter 95% of the sepperhead posts would dis-
    appear from this blog.

    DD

    ReplyDelete
  14. @DD

    Je dois vous informer au départ que j'ai une formation en Sciences politiques et que je suis né en sol Québécois,contrairement a adski qui semble être le gourou incontesté des "doggies". Si c'est vraiment le cas et bien bonne chance pour la compréhension nuancée de notre histoire et de ses différents contextes socio-politiques.

    Les bafouilles dont il est l'auteur sur ce blogue et que j'ai eu "la chance" de lire,ne sont que des copiés/collés d'extraits de bouquins dont les auteurs sont pour la plupart de vieux fédérastes frustrés dont la haine envers notre Nation est a peine voilée.

    adski (le perroquet)le guide des blogueux de "no dogs",wow!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous @2:07 PM

    "Je dois vous informer au départ que j'ai une formation en Sciences politiques et que je suis né en sol Québécois"

    irrelevant bullshit

    "notre Nation " -Your nation would be what? The
    only white French catholic need apply nation?

    + raciam
    = moron
    Tks for playing

    Sepperheads have gurus, you should try and think
    for yourselfves.

    DD

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Anonymous said...
    This is somewhat off topic but some readers may be interested in the updated website of the "Quebec Office of the English Language" at:

    http://oqla.org/"

    Count me in!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Asbestos c'est l'industrie ontarienne de l'automobile pour le Québec ! Vous comprenez la subtilité ? Votre mépris raciste envers les Québécois me fait bien rire !

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Your nation would be what? The
    only white French catholic need apply nation?"

    Nous appliquons simplement la méthode du multiculturalisme a l'anglaise : Vous êtes le bienvenu si vous daignez parler notre langue.

    Aussi simple que cela DiDi ou est-ce encore trop compliqué pour vous?Nous pouvons vous faire un petit dessin si vous voulez.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "irrelevant bullshit"

    Je crois comprendre que vous avez tout autant de mépris pour notre Nation que pour l'éducation,
    Comme c'est triste :(

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Nous appliquons simplement la méthode du multiculturalisme a l'anglaise : Vous êtes le bienvenu si vous daignez parler notre langue."

    It's funny... the only province where someone complained that I spoke to my partner in our mother tongue (private conversation) was Qc. "Ici on parle français"... to be more exact, a very nice gentleman interrupted our discussion on St Denis to shed light on the linguistic issue. Another gem: "Go 'ome Ontario"... It was a private conversation, not in En. And one more... it was kind of intelligible, but I was able to distinguish "immigrants" "cave" "crisse de calisse". We haven't paid that much attention, as the lady was wearing two colorful hats at the same time.

    I haven't met anyone to make such comments in Ontario, BC or Alberta, or even US. In France? Nope.

    I suppose it is just a coincidence, right?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I haven't met anyone to make such comments in Ontario, BC or Alberta, or even US. In France? Nope."

    Hmmmm.Pas croyable de pouvoir éditer de telles absurdités!Vous avez raison..."It's funny".

    "We haven't paid that much attention..."

    Assez tout de même pour venir raconter cette insignifiante anecdote sur un blogue.Wow!

    ReplyDelete
  22. "In France?Nope."

    La France commencent elle aussi a sentir la menace anglosaxonne et le jour ou le peuple Français passera en mode protectionniste comme ici au Québec et au point de quitter l'union Européenne,nous en reparlerons.Pour l'instant le globish est imposé par les marchés et les différents dirigeants assoiffés d'argent.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mon cher,

    I've spent enough years in the provinces mentioned above. One year in US and in Fr, enough time to judge. If you deny it it doesn't make it less true.

    Bonne Fête du Canada!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ha!.. this is where all my new commentators are coming from. Please allow me a few clarifications on some on the comments regarding moderation on my blog Chronicles of a Pure Laine.

    I've very rarely deleted a comment after having published it. Had I wanted to delete James' comments, I would've been a bit more subtle and deleted them entirely... without a trace that is (including corresponding exchanges). James deleted his comments all by himself. He actually missed a few here and here. But now that I'm pointing them out, they'll probably be deleted as well. I actually enjoyed reading James' level-headed comments.

    Adski, spinsters usually don't hold to articulate counter arguments. When you first stopped by my blog, your comments were well thought out (click here for example), but you stopped doing that at some point. Still, all your published comments are there. I'm not the one who's going to delete them.

    My rule of thumb is to stay away from comments filled with bitterness (regardless of the opinion)... very simple actually.

    ReplyDelete