Conservatives in Quebec
There is one big problem for those who are optimistic that a new Conservative Party, resulting from the merger of the PC and Alliance parties, might actually hurt the Liberals. (I'm not sure Colby Cosh is in this category, but I'll link to him again anyway). It is true that the non-Liberal, somewhere-possibly-to-the-right vote was split in the 2000 election, and that helped the Liberals, especially in Ontario. But it is also true that the Quebec vote was split, with most [Update: oops, should have said about half--the Libs have picked up 2 since the election] of the seats there continuing to go to a separatist party, the Bloc Quebecois.
(As of September 12 of this year, the Liberals held 37 seats in Quebec, the Bloc 34, the Tories 1).
No one expects that situation to continue--everyone expects the Liberals led by Paul Martin to win a lot of seats in Quebec--so any gains the Conservatives make in Ontario are likely to be more than cancelled out.
In the 2000 election, the Alliance actually won more votes in Quebec than the old Progressive Conservative Party, which harks back to John A. Macdonald and his partnership with Georges Cartier. The Alliance won just over 200,000 votes in Quebec; the PCs, just under 200,000--out of about 4.5 million votes cast in that province.
In Ontario, by contrast, with about the same number of ballots cast (despite Ontario's larger population), the Alliance and PCs between them collected about 1.7 million votes-- not too far from a third of the total for this province. That is what keeps the organizers of the merger going.
I was moved to look some of this up when I read Lysiane Gagnon in the Globe and Mail today: the (Anglophone) right has no chance in Quebec, etc.
I won't question her reading of Quebec, but I'll raise some questions:
1. What's so francophone about Paul Martin?
2. How does Gagnon explain Mulroney's two majorities, both depending partly or largely on Quebec? She says simply that they happened because of an "exceptional combination of factors", that "cannot" be repeated. Huh?
3. Going back farther, can she explain Diefenbaker winning a lot of seats there in the 50s (admittedly, a long time ago)?
4. Jean Charest has gone from federal Tory minister, to federal Tory leader in the 1997 election (campaigning on tax cuts), to Quebec Liberal leader and Premier (working to make the public sector smaller). Is it so impossible that he could lead a federal Conservative party?
See also Chantal Hebert in the Toronto Star. She can't think of any Conservative leader who will do well in Quebec. She says Charest now has "the Liberal machine" on his side, and the attempt to run as a Tory at the federal level would be seen as a betrayal.
Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta, has been openly gung ho about the idea of Charest as a federal Tory (again).
Update: another piece by Hebert says the Bloc Quebecois will do worse against Martin than it did against Chretien. "Nor can it expect to pick up the votes that went to the Action d????mocratique in the provincial campaign. The conservative-minded ADQ supporters are more likely to be attracted by Martin than by Gilles Duceppe. (Note to Harris fans: The Adequistes massively hail from the francophone areas of the province; places where one simply does not back a non-Quebec English-only leader over a native son.)"
The ADQ created a lot of excitement in the last Quebec election, although in the end their main accomplishment may have been to draw off enough "nationalist" vote from the Parti Quebecois so that the Liberals could win some francophone ridings. The ADQ platform was economically conservative: drastic tax cuts, outsourcing (including in health care), etc.
|
