Indeed, well I wish you the best for the election campaign.

Therefore it seems very unlikely that the BQ will join the Tories again, but it is possibly that the voters themselves will return to the Tories. I have not really heard about the candidates (except from an article I read), but none of them appear to be outstanding (nor did they for the 2005, UK Tory contest).

I am sorry if this appears to be an interrogation, but which Canadian newspaper would you suggest I read to brush up my knowledge on Commonwealth politics? I have read some articles in the Globe and Mail, and it is well written. For me it is very strange to have so few national newspapers (because of living in Great Britain).

The Tories are going to be a hard sell in Quebec, though, because they're perceived to be dominated by the hard-right Reform wing (which has it's base in the Western Provinces) whereas Quebecers are by in large more left-of-centre... the only real policy similarity between the Tory and Bloc voters is on devolution. There's still a wide disparity between the two on social spending, environment, gay marriage, and foreign policy. Harper is going to have a hard balancing act to lean far enough to the left to attract more Quebec votes but not so far that he alienates his base in the West.

*L* Interrogate away... like I say, this is a rare chance for me to talk Canadian politics on here. We've only really got two major national papers, the Globe and Mail has more of a Liberal bias while the National Post has a more Conservative bias, but they both give a pretty solid picture of our politics. It's true that we don't have as many national papers as you do in the UK, but don't forget that we've got about half your population in a country about 40 times as large - so we're a lot more spread out, and because of that a lot more of newspaper coverage is more localized in nature.

Therefore, I presume the Tories and the BQ are for devolution. If this is so, it is surprising that the Tories take this stance. In the UK they are opposed to devolution, and I thought this would be much the same throughout the rest of the IDU. I would say the discrepancy may be Europe, because Regional Assemblies are responsible to Brussels, and thus the Tories may fear a divide and rule policy.

Don't forget that we've got a whole layer of government - provincial - that you don't really have in the UK, either, so there's always a constant balancing act here between federal and provincial governments between how the power is to be shared. Philosophically, the Tories are in favor of giving the provinces increased power while the Bloc - who's raison d'etre is to separate Quebec from the country, wholeheartedly accepts all the powers Ottawa is willing to transfer to the province.

Of course, this brings up some interesting situations as well... for instance, Quebec has long wanted it's own voice in foreign affairs, and Harper thus far has been willing to oblige by allowing them to seat their own separate delegation at La Francophonie - the French equivalent of the British Commonwealth. This could be interesting if the Canadian delegation decides to vote one way and the Quebec delegation decides to vote the other - cancelling each other out... I don't know if they've got all the specifics ironed out there. Personally, though, I've got to figure it's a dangerous precedent to start giving provinces their own independent, if limited, voices on the international stage. Imagine Scotland or Wales having it's own seat at the United Nations.