How is this all playing in Quebec?

globeandmail.com: Harper plays patriot game

...risks angering Quebec voters, many of whom have voted for the Bloc Québécois in the past and may resent the suggestion that BQ support is illegitimate...

He did not, however, use the word “separatist” in the French version of his speech, preferring the less-inflammatory term, “souverainistes.”

In Quebec, Premier Jean Charest said after hearing Mr. Harper's televised address that Quebec doesn't need anti-sovereigntist rhetoric from the federal government while it copes with the global economic crisis.

www.theglobeandmail.com

Quebecers say ‘Good riddance!’ to Harper: poll | Jerad Gallinger

The poll, conducted by CROP for La Presse, found that 76 percent of respondants would favour a coalition should the Conservative government be defeated. 62 percent thought that the Bloc Québécois should be a part of the coalition and have seats at the cabinet table, while 70 percent felt that the Bloc should support the new government even if they are not an official part of the coalition.

j-rad.ca

Adam M On The Front Page:

Once again, nothing is stoking the flames of the hitherto recently sleeping separatist movement as Stephen Harper's constant insults to Quebec's elected MP's. This is an insult and citizens of Quebec are taking it as such.

The separatist sentiment that this insanity is bringing out in people in Quebec risks reviving the PQ's polls in the ongoing Quebec election. Stephen Harper is giving something for the Quebecois to be indignant about: suggesting that their members are illegitimate and that their vote don't count.

adammonthefrontpage.blogspot.com

Federal polling VI - coalition numbers

CTV released polling numbers on the coalition.

Do Canadians think the government should remain in power?

"Canadians are deeply divided on whether the Conservatives deserve to stay in power, with 35 per cent saying the party should continue to govern and 40 per cent wanting change..."

Hmmmm....35% is about what the Conservatives got in the last election, which is within the poll's margin of error. So, no more divided than before this "crisis".*

If the coalition falls, Canadians would want:
- Opposition coalition: 37 per cent
- Holding a federal election: 32 per cent
- No sure: 24 per cent
- Allowing the opposition to run by accord: 7 per cent

"A full 75 per cent thought the government should implement a stimulus package as soon as possible, while 17 per cent disagreed."

* Yes, I realize that 25% of respondents weren't sure, and some of those will be more likely to support the current government while others will be more likely to support a new coalition government. For the record, I'm in the "don't think the coalition is a great idea but I can't imagine Harper continuing as PM after he steered his party into this debacle so something has to change and I voted for a coalition party so I may as well support their bid for forming a not-batshit-crazy government" group.

Harper's hypocrisy

Now, I try to remain relatively non-partisan on here, but at times partisan criticism is unavoidable. And I don't mean to suggest with this post that the other parties and leaders are above hypocrisy, forgetting history or going back on their word. But this is getting to be a bit much. Here are three blatant cases of hypocrisy from Stephen Harper and the Conservatives:

1) Making it law that elections would happen on fixed dates, and stating that they shouldn't be called for purely political reasons. This was standard Chretien procedure that the Conservatives decried and then made illegal. "Fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage," our PM said. Then he went ahead and did it anyway.

2) Decrying the proposed Liberal-NDP-(Bloc) coalition as undemocratic, decrying the two parties for jumping in bed with the "separatists", and crying foul because the NDP and Bloc discussed the possibility of a coalition before the current crisis. Um, Sept. 9th, 2004, anyone? A letter was sent to then G-G Adrienne Clarkson asking her to consider dissolving Parliament (Martin's minority government was about to take power) before it had even started, and that the opposition parties had been "in close consultation"; this letter was signed by Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and...wait for it....Stephen Harper! And Mr. Harper, it's part of our democratic system.

3) Mocking the NDP's association with the Liberals. From today in the House: “Why should anybody have confidence in the leader of a party who would agree to fold his own party into another party?” Can he be serious? Is he just mocking Peter McKay outright? Doesn't he remember being intimately involved in the formation of his own party?

Does this man have no sense of history? Or does he think we just don't remember any of it? Bizarre.

Edit

What is the point of all this if the only difference is slightly more NDP and Bloc seats and slightly less Liberal and seats?

Significant aspects of this election:

1) NDP laying claim to the possibility of governing this great land. 20% of the popular vote isn't that far from 28%, where the Liberals sit. It's a far cry from 35-38%, true, but it does signify a change in the tone of the NDP leadership.

2) The Bloc is not a spent force. A while ago it seemed like the Bloc was on the way out. No new ideas. A lack of identity without any real move toward sovereignty, and so on. Harper gifted them this, but the readiness with which voters moved back to the Bloc means they are and will be a meaningful force in federal politics for a while.

3) Stephane Dion on the come-back trail. I'm not sure how much he actually did (good reviews in both debates), and there remains the possibility that he'll be canned after the election is over, but I think he has shown Canadians that he isn't just an acharismatic egghead.

4) Last but not least: The coming-out party (ultimately a disappointment) of the Green party. Did they think they would finally win a seat? Why did Adriane Carr run in Vancouver Centre? We'll have to see what the final numbers are, but I'm pretty sure they'll improve on their vote total of 2006. May did very well in the debates, but until the Greens establish a voter-base and expand their party identity, they will struggle to retain the numbers they poll in the weeks leading up to the final vote.