>Is Mr. Poilievre ready for this? Nothing in his character fills one with confidence. The adolescent pugnacity, the flinty, chip-on-the-shoulder defensiveness – these are the traits of a deeply insecure person, anxious at all times that others should recognize him as the top dog.
>In the face of the inevitable separatist provocation, would he have the patience and the fortitude neither to lash back, nor to give in, but to maintain a position of genial immovability, steadfast and calm? Or would he fall prey to the temptation, as other leaders have before him, to “fix the Quebec problem”?
Makes you wonder how a potential Prime Minister Pierre would handle ANY crisis. His past track record would imply “poorly”
PeregrineThe on
Well when you borrow money, at a proportional scale greater than WW2, to prop up the mortgage bond market and other creditors. Then try to stave off wage-price-spirals with ridiculous immigration levels. You effectively divide the country into two classes. Those with assets, who will not feel the effect of these policies because their assets are appreciating. And those without, who are being taxed through inflation to support the other.
Mihairokov on
> In 2011, for example: Stephen Harper’s Conservatives won a majority nationwide, but just five seats in Quebec. No great calamity ensued. Maybe none will again.
Why do I get the feeling a Poilievre government would antagonize Quebec far more than Harper ever did? I feel like the knives would come out the second Poilievre is soft on Quebec on X issue, and then he would reflexively come down harder on them. Pissing off Quebec feeds his base more than it fed Harper’s base, especially if he can angle it as retribution for whatever nonsense Trudeau had done in the past.
Pirate_Secure on
Poilievre supports greater provincial autonomy. I don’t think Quebec would be against that. In fact it will a great opportunity to open the constitution to limit the federal power and expand provincial powers.
zoziw on
Much of our political discussion focuses on the left and right side of things, but there is another important distinction, Liberals believe in a centralized federalism and Conservatives support a decentralized federalism.
So, whatever the Bloc says on the evening news, the National Assembly is probably going to be less hostile with a federal government that minds its own jurisdiction.
With respect to few seats in Quebec, Harper made Michael Fortier a Quebec cabinet minister and the guy didn’t even have a seat in the House of Commons. Not only that, he didn’t require him to run in a byelection, instead, he appointed him to the Senate and said he would run as an MP in the next federal election.
There was lots of handwringing amongst the chattering classes about that one but Poilievre has options if he doesn’t win a lot of seats in Quebec.
I don’t see a unity crisis after the next election.
7 Comments
Paywall [bypass](https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-unity-crisis-that-awaits-us-on-the-other-side-of-the-next-election/) for anyone without a G&M subscription
>Is Mr. Poilievre ready for this? Nothing in his character fills one with confidence. The adolescent pugnacity, the flinty, chip-on-the-shoulder defensiveness – these are the traits of a deeply insecure person, anxious at all times that others should recognize him as the top dog.
>In the face of the inevitable separatist provocation, would he have the patience and the fortitude neither to lash back, nor to give in, but to maintain a position of genial immovability, steadfast and calm? Or would he fall prey to the temptation, as other leaders have before him, to “fix the Quebec problem”?
Makes you wonder how a potential Prime Minister Pierre would handle ANY crisis. His past track record would imply “poorly”
Well when you borrow money, at a proportional scale greater than WW2, to prop up the mortgage bond market and other creditors. Then try to stave off wage-price-spirals with ridiculous immigration levels. You effectively divide the country into two classes. Those with assets, who will not feel the effect of these policies because their assets are appreciating. And those without, who are being taxed through inflation to support the other.
> In 2011, for example: Stephen Harper’s Conservatives won a majority nationwide, but just five seats in Quebec. No great calamity ensued. Maybe none will again.
Why do I get the feeling a Poilievre government would antagonize Quebec far more than Harper ever did? I feel like the knives would come out the second Poilievre is soft on Quebec on X issue, and then he would reflexively come down harder on them. Pissing off Quebec feeds his base more than it fed Harper’s base, especially if he can angle it as retribution for whatever nonsense Trudeau had done in the past.
Poilievre supports greater provincial autonomy. I don’t think Quebec would be against that. In fact it will a great opportunity to open the constitution to limit the federal power and expand provincial powers.
Much of our political discussion focuses on the left and right side of things, but there is another important distinction, Liberals believe in a centralized federalism and Conservatives support a decentralized federalism.
So, whatever the Bloc says on the evening news, the National Assembly is probably going to be less hostile with a federal government that minds its own jurisdiction.
With respect to few seats in Quebec, Harper made Michael Fortier a Quebec cabinet minister and the guy didn’t even have a seat in the House of Commons. Not only that, he didn’t require him to run in a byelection, instead, he appointed him to the Senate and said he would run as an MP in the next federal election.
There was lots of handwringing amongst the chattering classes about that one but Poilievre has options if he doesn’t win a lot of seats in Quebec.
I don’t see a unity crisis after the next election.
[removed]