From: Gene McAloon 

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 11:17:39 -0400, "John Beamish"  wrote:

>You answer the question exactly:  "on an issue by issue
basis".  That would
>not be a coalition.

Of course it would be a coalition. No political party would bend totally to
another, in a coalition or not. In making the comment he did, he was simply
reassuring his followers that there would not be a cave in on issues.
Always, even in a coalition, it is one an issue by issue basis.
>
>When you say "nor is it true that the Bloc is seen as solely a party that
>wants separation", you're simply referring to the "new and improved
>version".  That is simply Bloc spin.  Absent the issue of separation, there
>is little difference between the Bloc and the NDP (well, the NDP _might_ be
>slightly closer to the centre of the political spectrum).
>
No, it is not simply Bloc spin. At that, separation is no longer even a
serious possibility/issue. The big difference between the two is that one
is French speaking and definitely regional. The other is neither. In the
Canadian context,
that is all important.

>There is one policy area where the Conservatives and Bloc do have agreement.
>Both believe that federal funds sent to the provinces should be controlled
>by the provinces.  The feds believe that funds transferred for, say, health
>care must be used for health care.  Both the Bloc and the Conservatives
>believe that when the funds have been transferred they are to be used in
>whatever manner the province deems appropriate.

Both believe as you say they do, but for entirely different reasons.  For
the Conservatives, it is the usual issue of local control and screw the fed
government. Not much different from the Republican states rights junk in
the US.

For the Bloc, local control of money from the feds translates into being able to
spend the money on things, projects, peculiar to Quebec and its French
speaking minority, things the feds might not be willing to finance because
of opposition from the West if nothing else.
>
>
>
>"Gene McAloon"  wrote in message
>news:ffh4e0tc9ufnkooulhgari4n586tnakst6{at}4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:06:08 -0400, "John Beamish"
DOT
>> com> wrote:
>>
>> I believe that is more an expression of your attitude towards the Bloc
>than
>> anything having to do with reality. That reality is that, had the
>Conservatives
>> gotten more votes than the Libs, they could have governed only by forming
>a
>> coalition. The only possible coalition partner would be the Bloc.
>Therefore,
>> they would have joined with the Bloc. The Bloc knew that, which explains
>the
>> statement by its leader that he would cooperate with the Conservatives in
>a
>> coalition only on an issue by issue basis. A coalition there most
>certainly
>> would have been.
>>
>> Nor is it true that the Bloc is seen as solely a party that wants
>separation and
>> cares nothing about anything else. The Bloc is in fact a force in
>Parliament on
>> many issues. But as a minority party it can never hope to get what it
>wants
>> without supporting one or another party, whether in a coalition or not.
>> Naturally the party most likely to help it is the one party which really
>> wouldn't be at all sorry to see the francophones leave the country, the
>> Conservatives. It would be a natural fit for both, despite their
>placements on
>> the political spectrum.
>>
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5