A question about the effects of corruption
I’ve been wondering about the political effects of known corruption, so I’m floating this as a question.
Canada is still suffering from the fallout of the sponsorship scandal, whose effects were such that many in Quebec still hate the federal Liberal party with a white-hot hatred, the party was brought low and the Harper government rules all. Nobody likes being had, but we’re all suffering from the punishment Quebec has meted out to the federal Liberals.
But it’s become clear that the Charest government is up past its elbows in corruption, with dodgy deals galore accruing to it – and yet it seems likely that if an election is called for this autumn, Jean Charest will be back in power for another 4 to 5 years. Are people not just as insulted by what we’ve seen his party doing? Have we not also been had by the Charest Liberals? Why doesn’t this matter?
Besides that, a discussion a few threads down is about the Tremblay administration. Before the last municipal election stories were coming out about brown envelopes at city hall, and we’ve seen city hall people turning against each other, and serious questions of corruption and collusion in connection with the city’s construction contracts. But it seems all too likely that in 2013, Tremblay will be re-elected if he runs again. Have we not been had by Gérald Tremblay and the people he chose to associate himself with? Why doesn’t this matter?
Chris 10:37 on 2012/07/14 Permalink
because our bellies are fully and our TVs are working.
Kate 10:41 on 2012/07/14 Permalink
That was no different during the sponsorship scandal. It’s not as if people went hungry because the federal Liberals gave money to a bunch of Quebec PR hacks.
James 10:56 on 2012/07/14 Permalink
Didnt Harper (at the time) run on the platform of openness and cracking down on party & government corruption? I seem to remember that. (Whether or not he’s fulfilled those promises are largely up to ones political point of view.)
No party leaders in Quebec really ever stands up and says we need sweeping reform, and deep investigations into ALL the parties finances, and industries where we know corruption and dirty money exist. If we had this kind of alternative, instead of mired in the federalist/separatist schism, we’d probably be angry enough to change our votes.
Since none of that is going to happen, you have what you’re reporting on: a collective ‘hey, nothin we can do about it’…. (goes to the terrace, drinks)
Jack 11:18 on 2012/07/14 Permalink
Tremblay won’t run he knows he is done.Despite constant media framing, Richard Bergeron is going to look better and better.No doubt he is a character but for goodness sake look at Labeaume you can feel the passion he has for his city pour out of the screen,same with Bergeron.With Tremblay you get the feeling that your about to enter the Director of the Funeral Home’s office.
qatzelok 11:30 on 2012/07/14 Permalink
Reports about Charest or Tremblay winning the next election are highly dubious. If they do win, then they may have cheated. Perhaps all these mass-media polls are also rigged.
Kate 11:36 on 2012/07/14 Permalink
qatzelok, although votes here can be rigged I don’t think either Charest or Tremblay would have to descend to anything so crude. They can rely on voter apathy – it’s served them well so far.
Adam Hooper 11:39 on 2012/07/14 Permalink
Here’s an alternate theory for the aftermath of the sponsorship scandal: it didn’t affect the 2006 election. Harper won because he ran a better campaign. The Conservatives were finally organized. They reduced their platform to a bullet-list, while Martin wanted to solve everything all at once. And the Liberals suffered from a leak so the Conservatives knew exactly how to counter the Liberal campaign.
All of this made the Liberals seem disorganized and the Conservatives seem in control. That narrative still hasn’t changed, and it has nothing to do with corruption.
What’s more important: corruption, or the reach of capitalism in our country? Corruption, or copyright law? Corruption, or our economy?
I don’t believe corruption affects voting habits. Happily, newspapers are an important check on corruption, and I think they can be (but aren’t today) enough. For instance, many Canadians dislike Bev Oda after a torrent of unsavoury news about her (let’s not call it corruption, but let’s call it “un-Canadian”), and now she’s gone. (Ooh ooh this one: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1224540–bev-oda-allegedly-expensed-air-purifier-to-smoke-in-her-office .) And regardless of who win the next Quebec and Montreal elections, many criminals in and around political parties have been and will be charged for corrupt behaviour.
So I’ll definitely vote for the parties I think will deliver transparency … as long as I agree with the rest of their platforms.
Kevin 13:03 on 2012/07/14 Permalink
The corruption tainting provincial politics has decades-old roots. Whatever the Liberals have been up to, people suspect the PQ have done the same or worse.
The third party is just too new to be fully trusted or understood. CAQ’s platform is high on promises but low on details, and Legault is not much of a talker. He’s a competent businessman with a politically checkered past.
So it comes down to stewardship/management of the economy, and no way does Marois win that battle. Her record of flip-flopping is long, and 2/3 of Quebec has no interest in watching the economy tank, yet again, under a PQ govt that cares more about raising taxes and preparing for a referendum.
On the municipal side, the public at large does not even know who the players are. I’d say 7 out of 10 would not be able to name the mayor, and both opposition leaders.
And if they do, they know Harel is the one who created the merger debacle, and that Bergeron is passionate but lacking in specifics.
Marc 13:57 on 2012/07/14 Permalink
I was sure I saw Denis Coderre measuring the drapes in the mayor’s office. That’s assuming Tremblay doesn’t run.
david m 13:57 on 2012/07/14 Permalink
devoir has a good summary of the parties’ strategies coming into the election – http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/354567/entre-boite-a-surprise-et-cocktail-explosif per that article, the economy doesn’t figure at this point, at least in the francophone campaign that actually matters, but a general stewardship argument figures with the students, the corruption and various other pressure points (personal leadership, for instance). it’s just impossible to guess who’ll win this one, though at the outset, i think smart money is on marois.
as for the municipal, what a shitshow. in a normal place, bergeron would sail into the mayoralty next year, and that’s still my prediction, but anything could happen. there’s even talk of denis coderre heading the union team, could you imagine?
Kate 14:32 on 2012/07/14 Permalink
I can imagine Coderre, and it’s been hinted at here and there, although whether he’d give up his comfy federal niche for the wacky world of municipal politics, who can say? People like him and he uses Twitter like a champ. I don’t know whether he has the cojones to stand up to Quebec, which we need more than almost any other trait in a mayor. Montreal has half of Quebec’s population – imagine if we had a mayor with the balls to say to Quebec, over an issue like rebuilding the Turcot: “No, you can’t do that, and if you try, I’ll take all of Montreal’s support away from you!”
John 16:48 on 2012/07/14 Permalink
@Kate – I don’t think Coderre lacks the body parts you mentioned. When Mackay wouldn’t book him on a military plane to Afghanistan, he booked his own commercial flight via Pakistan – and talked to local radio shows from every airport on the way. And, when he thought his boss, Iggy, wasn’t being respectful to his position as Quebec lieutenant, he went public and quit. Cojones he has, now as to brains….
@Adam Hooper – I have to disagree. A quick look at the polls will tell you the Liberals were ahead in 2006 until the bizarre, and still unexplained, announcement made half-way through the campaign by the RCMP (via a letter from Zaccardelli to a Manitoba MP) that Ralph Goodale was being investigated for an insider trading leak . That story took over and dominated the rest of the election blocking any announcements the LPC might have wanted to make.
willie granger 22:59 on 2012/07/14 Permalink
The non-franco demographic might finally be tipping the scales against the separatists.. I think the separatists saw this coming long ago and that’s why they rushed those two referendae, once the Syrians/Lebanese/Congolese,etc, fill up this province there’ll never be any hope of the Country of Quebec.
david m 03:06 on 2012/07/15 Permalink
^ you know nothing about quebec.
Jake 03:32 on 2012/07/15 Permalink
I think that the problem is that provincially, there’s no one to vote for. Provincially we’ve got the PQ or the Liberals, both of which are equally corrupt. Or you could vote for Quebec Solidare but it’s run by arrogant pricks or the ADQ but it’s run by assholes. So there really are no options. If you’re a mouse (like most of us) you’re just choosing which colour of cat you want to eat you. On the civic level it’s pretty much the same thing only less interesting for the average voter.
I love the idea of voting but when it all comes down to it I don’t really care whether it’s Pauline Marois, Jean Charest, Gerald Tremblay or Louise Harel that’s robbing us because they’re all thieves.
willie granger 19:23 on 2012/07/15 Permalink
People vote on the economy. The economy of Quebec isn’t particularly disastrous right now and people remember that the PQ is terribly at dealing with the economy, so that’s why the Liberals will be re-elected again, even if it’s in a minority with CAQ.