The Legault Government

59 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
The Legault Government

 

On his plan to ban religious symbols for all persons in a position of authority, Legault said he would be ready to invoke the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ensure he can put the ban in place.

Legault justified the exceptional measure by saying it would be used if it was to guarantee something that the “vast majority” of Quebecers want.

On his plan to lower Quebec’s yearly immigration quota to 40,000, Legault maintained he intends on having the decrease in place by next year. He hopes to speak with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about it in coming weeks, he added.

Legault also reiterated his position on cannabis legalization, saying he will raise the legal age in Quebec to 21....

And now for the good news:

On electoral reform, Legault recommitted to changing Quebec’s electoral system for a mixed proportional representation system, despite winning a convincing majority. The CAQ, Parti Québécois and Québec solidaire had agreed on the issue during the campaign.

Asked if this election would be the last under Quebec’s first-past-the-post system, Legault said it would.

“We will table a bill within the first year,” he answered.

 

Pondering

I brought a post from the other thread because I put the "if PR" numbers in and Legault claims he will do it. 

Vote share 2018 compared to 2014

  • CAQ………..37.48………..+14.43
  • PLQ…………24.74………...-16.78
  • PQ………….17.09…………-8.29
  • QS………….16.06…………+8.43
  • Others……..4.63………..+3.48

*Green had .55 in 2014.

I understand that PR can lead to people voting differently but assuming we had the same results

125 seats result rounded

  • CAQ………..37.48………..47 seats instead of 74................ - 27
  • PLQ…………24.74………... 31 seats instead of 32............. -1
  • PQ………….17.09…………  21 seats instead of 9...............+ 12
  • QS………….16.06………… 20 seats instead of 10.............+10 doubled!
  • Others……..4.63………..  6 seats instead of 0...................+6

63 seats for a majority.

That would be 78 seats for no-referendum, 32 seats pro-independence or nationalist, 6 other which I think goes with the no-ref side. 

If we get PR in Quebec I suspect it will change and give Quebecers more choice. This is good for the NDPQ and I think for voters. We could end up with:

  • LPQ.......no ref........right 
  • CAQ.......no ref........nationalist right 
  • PQ..........no ref,,,,,,,,nationalist centre left
  • QS..........ref.............left
  • NDPQ.....no ref........centre left (assuming they survive)

 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I don't believe Legault. The first paragraph,yes, but on PR? He's full of shit. I'll eat my hat if he follows through on that.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

alan smithee wrote:

I don't believe Legault. The first paragraph,yes, but on PR? He's full of shit. I'll eat my hat if he follows through on that.

Indeed.  A party that took 58.7% of the seats on 37% of the vote is NOT going to bring in pr.   

Pondering

Josh posted a graph in the Election Quebec thread but the same poll had lots of other interesting tidbits in the numbers.

I wouldn't have guessed PR to be so popular in Quebec even though it is still low priority.

Legault promises this in the first year of government. Since being elected he reiterated his commitment. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Legault is going to get a taste of power and not want to give it up. He's full of shit. He will NOT implement PR. No way. It may have made sense to him when he was the 2nd and 3rd place party but now that he's won a majority,he isn't going to piss it away with PR. Trust me. I will eat my hat as I said. I'm not kidding.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Josh posted a graph in the Election Quebec thread but the same poll had lots of other interesting tidbits in the numbers.

I wouldn't have guessed PR to be so popular in Quebec even though it is still low priority.

Legault promises this in the first year of government. Since being elected he reiterated his commitment. 

I am not suprised at all.

Quebec is unique and being shut out of government is a deep concern.

It has no desire to control federal governments one election and be shut out the next. I can see why it would prefer a more stable PR approach that would see it consistently properly represented in all federal governments rather than delivering almost all seats to either the government or an opposition party, thereby being under-represented in government.Federal elections deliver lopsided majorities in the province that do not reflect the actual votes cast.

Provincial governments have consistently shown that one party can win the popular vote but this may not be reflected in totals.

The political culture in Quebec is more bent towards consensus so it is not freaked out by the idea of a stable long-term requirement that parties work together in place of false majorities undermining each other one after another.

Quebec has a population that seems quite willing to look to a global rather than a North America-only arena for examples.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Josh posted a graph in the Election Quebec thread but the same poll had lots of other interesting tidbits in the numbers.

Methodologically, it's not surprising that respondents favoured "a new system of Proportional Representation".

By not telling respondents which system of Proportional Representation they're judging, respondents have no way to know what the downsides of the actual system would be, whereas, of course, the downsides of FPTP are evident to them.

If it turns out that the new system might have party lists, or might mean that their MPP/MLA isn't someone they know, or it means larger ridings, the results could be different.  But worded this way, the "new system" is new, vague, and without shortcomings.  I would hope that if Quebec holds a referendum, they provide voters with clear and specific choices.

Badriya

Pondering wrote:

 

On his plan to ban religious symbols for all persons in a position of authority, Legault said he would be ready to invoke the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ensure he can put the ban in place.

Legault justified the exceptional measure by saying it would be used if it was to guarantee something that the “vast majority” of Quebecers want.

On his plan to lower Quebec’s yearly immigration quota to 40,000, Legault maintained he intends on having the decrease in place by next year. He hopes to speak with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about it in coming weeks, he added.

Legault also reiterated his position on cannabis legalization, saying he will raise the legal age in Quebec to 21....

And now for the good news:

On electoral reform, Legault recommitted to changing Quebec’s electoral system for a mixed proportional representation system, despite winning a convincing majority. The CAQ, Parti Québécois and Québec solidaire had agreed on the issue during the campaign.

Asked if this election would be the last under Quebec’s first-past-the-post system, Legault said it would.

“We will table a bill within the first year,” he answered.

 

Pondering, do you have a link to this information?  

voice of the damned

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Josh posted a graph in the Election Quebec thread but the same poll had lots of other interesting tidbits in the numbers.

I wouldn't have guessed PR to be so popular in Quebec even though it is still low priority.

Legault promises this in the first year of government. Since being elected he reiterated his commitment. 

I am not suprised at all.

Quebec is unique and being shut out of government is a deep concern.

It has no desire to control federal governments one election and be shut out the next. I can see why it would prefer a more stable PR approach that would see it consistently properly represented in all federal governments rather than delivering almost all seats to either the government or an opposition party, thereby being under-represented in government.Federal elections deliver lopsided majorities in the province that do not reflect the actual votes cast.

Provincial governments have consistently shown that one party can win the popular vote but this may not be reflected in totals.

The political culture in Quebec is more bent towards consensus so it is not freaked out by the idea of a stable long-term requirement that parties work together in place of false majorities undermining each other one after another.

Quebec has a population that seems quite willing to look to a global rather than a North America-only arena for examples.

Interesting, then, that Quebec has never implemented PR at the provincial level, where, as far as I know, they would be at complete liberty to do so.

Not that I'm doubting that the support for PR, such as it is, is stronger in Quebec than elsewhere. But I'm thinking it might be a question of "Two miles wide and an inch deep" in Quebec, rather than "A mile wide and an inch deep" everywhere else.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I think people are starting to get into the group think of proportional representation. I don't think it is a well thought out support, more just a pack mentality (like when Reform preached the evils of deficits).  The don't know the argument fully, but see that more and more people and organizations are falling behind PR.

There is no need for specifics in my opinion.  It comes down to the simple principle of one person one vote.  If you agree with 1P1V then you should agree with the corollary that each vote having the same level of effectiveness.  Proportional representation means finding a way to even out the effectiveness of everyone's vote.  Yes it is hard to turn the principle into a system, which is why there are many systems.  However that the rest of the world has moved towards PR means that many of these systems work.

The hold back is that PR has to overcome the winners of FPP, but that is just a matter of time.

pietro_bcc

I know it won't happen because Legault has only 2 Montreal seats, but hopefully the seat counts are rebalanced to correspond with how many people live in each region. For example on the Island of Montreal there are 27 seats, we should have 30 seats based on our population. Other regions would also gain and lose seats based on their population if true fairness in representation was achieved.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Montreal protesters march to protest racism, denounce new government

A diverse crowd of protesters took to the streets of Montreal on Sunday to march against racism and denounce the newly-elected Coalition Avenir Quebec government.

Muslim families pushing strollers, Indigenous community leaders, masked anti-capitalist activists and members of some 50 community groups marched through the city's downtown in a protest that stretched across several blocks.

Many demonstrators carried signs targeting premier-designate Francois Legault, who has promised to cut immigration and submit new Quebecers to a French and values test within three years of arriving.

Legault has also said he's ready to use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to pass legislation banning public servants in positions of authority from wearing religious clothing such as Muslim hijabs, Jewish kippahs and Sikh turbans.

Members of Sunday's crowd, which included a large number of women in hijabs, made it clear they weren't among the new premier's supporters.

"Not only will I keep my veil, Mr. Legault, I'll put on my cowboy hat to fight for my rights," read one poster....

pietro_bcc

epaulo13 wrote:

Montreal protesters march to protest racism, denounce new government

A diverse crowd of protesters took to the streets of Montreal on Sunday to march against racism and denounce the newly-elected Coalition Avenir Quebec government.

Muslim families pushing strollers, Indigenous community leaders, masked anti-capitalist activists and members of some 50 community groups marched through the city's downtown in a protest that stretched across several blocks.

Many demonstrators carried signs targeting premier-designate Francois Legault, who has promised to cut immigration and submit new Quebecers to a French and values test within three years of arriving.

Legault has also said he's ready to use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to pass legislation banning public servants in positions of authority from wearing religious clothing such as Muslim hijabs, Jewish kippahs and Sikh turbans.

Members of Sunday's crowd, which included a large number of women in hijabs, made it clear they weren't among the new premier's supporters.

"Not only will I keep my veil, Mr. Legault, I'll put on my cowboy hat to fight for my rights," read one poster....

 

Its okay, those people aren't real Quebecers because some of them were holding english signs.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2018/10/09/des-enfants-musulmans-dans-...

I love the lengths to which the Quebec commentariat goes to justify denouncing peaceful protests. When it was the students they were violent mobs because a few windows were broken and they were lazy and ungrateful kids who should get a job. Now they can't call these people violent because they did no vandalism, so they're not real Quebecers and some of them had mean signs comparing the CAQ to the KKK (but of course the left wing are the snowflakes, not the right who are crying about a sign being in english and being mean.)

Now the media is complaining about the political class once again being denounced for the most part as the racists they are and that the international media are picking up on their racism. The best thing Carlos Leitao ever said was that the CAQ was a party based on ethnic nationalism.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

pietro_bcc wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Montreal protesters march to protest racism, denounce new government

A diverse crowd of protesters took to the streets of Montreal on Sunday to march against racism and denounce the newly-elected Coalition Avenir Quebec government.

Muslim families pushing strollers, Indigenous community leaders, masked anti-capitalist activists and members of some 50 community groups marched through the city's downtown in a protest that stretched across several blocks.

Many demonstrators carried signs targeting premier-designate Francois Legault, who has promised to cut immigration and submit new Quebecers to a French and values test within three years of arriving.

Legault has also said he's ready to use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to pass legislation banning public servants in positions of authority from wearing religious clothing such as Muslim hijabs, Jewish kippahs and Sikh turbans.

Members of Sunday's crowd, which included a large number of women in hijabs, made it clear they weren't among the new premier's supporters.

"Not only will I keep my veil, Mr. Legault, I'll put on my cowboy hat to fight for my rights," read one poster....

 

Its okay, those people aren't real Quebecers because some of them were holding english signs.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2018/10/09/des-enfants-musulmans-dans-...

I love the lengths to which the Quebec commentariat goes to justify denouncing peaceful protests. When it was the students they were violent mobs because a few windows were broken and they were lazy and ungrateful kids who should get a job. Now they can't call these people violent because they did no vandalism, so they're not real Quebecers and some of them had mean signs comparing the CAQ to the KKK (but of course the left wing are the snowflakes, not the right who are crying about a sign being in english and being mean.)

Now the media is complaining about the political class once again being denounced for the most part as the racists they are and that the international media are picking up on their racism. The best thing Carlos Leitao ever said was that the CAQ was a party based on ethnic nationalism.

I expect nothing less from that snot rag Le Journal. Allo Police was a more legitimate paper. The gazette is not much better and I never read their comment section anymore. Their readers,for the most part, should move to Alberta or Mississippi.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

The big crucifix stays.

Government employees are required to shun ostentatious religious symbols.  Government buildings, not so much.

I can't believe they're still getting traction out of the "it's not religion, it's history" canard.  Sure, the Catholic Church was part of history; so was the English language, but nobody gets to put "Pasta" on the menu and claim it's exempt because of the past.

pietro_bcc

You don't understand "patrimoine" is a magical word that allows you to disregard any concept of consistency or logic. Just say the word patrimoine in Quebec and you can do whatever you want with the backing of the media and most of the political class and if anyone calls you out on it you can just accuse them of "Quebec bashing". That crucifix has been deemed patrimoine by the CAQ, therefore you can't criticize them for keeping it up or you're anti-Quebec.

The real racists are those who fight against racism, like these protestors.

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

The big crucifix stays.

Government employees are required to shun ostentatious religious symbols.  Government buildings, not so much.

I can't believe they're still getting traction out of the "it's not religion, it's history" canard.  Sure, the Catholic Church was part of history; so was the English language, but nobody gets to put "Pasta" on the menu and claim it's exempt because of the past.

I liked his rationale for keeping the crucifix. Apparently, it symbolizes Catholicism and Protestantism(true, but only if you make "protestant" synonymous with Anglican), and this in turn honours the French and the English cultures of Quebec, since those were their faiths.

Though if Duplessis' intent back in 1936 was really to lionize the historical contributions of the French and the English(rather than just pander to the Roman Catholic Church), you could presumbaly send the same message by replacing the crucifix with a Union Jack and whatever standard the French were using pre-Conquest.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Josh posted a graph in the Election Quebec thread but the same poll had lots of other interesting tidbits in the numbers.

Methodologically, it's not surprising that respondents favoured "a new system of Proportional Representation".

By not telling respondents which system of Proportional Representation they're judging, respondents have no way to know what the downsides of the actual system would be, whereas, of course, the downsides of FPTP are evident to them.

If it turns out that the new system might have party lists, or might mean that their MPP/MLA isn't someone they know, or it means larger ridings, the results could be different.  But worded this way, the "new system" is new, vague, and without shortcomings.  I would hope that if Quebec holds a referendum, they provide voters with clear and specific choices.

He's not planning on having a referedum. He is saying MMP, no new seats, so I guess larger ridings. He said he is doing it this year and he said this after the election.

Quebec could have PR before BC. 

I'm really surprised the topic isn't getting picked up by any pundits in Quebec or the rest of Canada other than a passing mention nor much interest here. 

This is about the only ray of hope I see of avoiding perpetual right wing governments in Quebec now that both top parties are right wing. New parties rise fast in Quebec. This could be just what we need to finally put the independence question to rest at least for a decade. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Is there really anyone here who believes the Legault government will pass PR? Seriously. Legault's biggest dream has been realized. He MAY have been supporting of PR when CAQ was the 3rd and 2nd place party but they are now the majority. The crowned princes. Why the hell would he want to piss away all this new power with PR?

Stop it already. It's becoming embarrassing.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

Is there really anyone here who believes the Legault government will pass PR? Seriously. Legault's biggest dream has been realized. He MAY have been supporting of PR when CAQ was the 3rd and 2nd place party but they are now the majority. The crowned princes. Why the hell would he want to piss away all this new power with PR?

Stop it already. It's becoming embarrassing.

Maybe he actually believes in it. It does happen. He knows his party could vanish as quickly as it rose. 

Why did he reiterate his intention and say he wouldn't have a referendum now that the election is over? It was never a significant electoral promise. 

In order of importance the issues were: Healthcare, immigration and values, education, sovereignty and the environment.

http://angusreid.org/quebec-election-2018-analysis/

What would Legault's motive be for reiterating his commitment to PR other than he really does support it?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The man is a proven liar. He has also reiterated that nobody should worry about a CAQ government. A craven lie. I think at best, he'll string along people who support PR for the remainder of his tenure, trying to prove he is serious about this (empty) promise.

String people along just in time for the next election where he'll reiterate it again. He has achieved a lifelong dream. He is now the King of Quebec. He hasn't yet tasted the fruits of his new power and once he does (which will be in the next 6 months) he won't want to lose it.

I'm sorry,I don't trust this man as far as I can throw him. I suggest those who are willing to listen to or believe popular progressive  policies ( this may be his only one) proposed by Legault take it with a grain of salt.

Power is a powerful thing. It s addictive and it takes precedent as much as coke does for a crackhead.

Don't get your hopes high. He appears to be, imo, a very weak man. And a weak man given power for once in his life is dangerous and untrustworthy.

NorthReport

We (Canadian society) can only blame ourselves for electing these clowns time after time after time

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-us-canada-45842471

NorthReport

 

 

dp

lagatta4

The crucifix has no business in a parliamentary assembly. It goes back only to Duplessis; earlier legislators here wanted to keep Church and State separate. Moreover, it isn't even the original crucifix; It is a copy; from the 1980s, I believe.

Pondering

I would never go so far as to say I trust Legault. I did think about what his motive would be.

Numbers come from the popular vote collected from Wikipedia

  • Popular Vote 2008 -2012 -2014 -2018 (does not include all parties)
  • CAQ  ….(+ AD 16.37)………..27.05 ………….23.05…….. 37.42
  • Liberal… 42.08…………..….31.20……….41.52…………..24.82
  • PQ ………35.17………………31.95………25.38………….17.06
  • QS………. 3.78………..…….6.03……………7.63…………….16.10

 

Legault is a sovereigntist and everyone in Quebec knows it. He promotes a “third way” solution in which there is no referendum. Quebec simply seeks to transfer as much power as possible from the federal to the provincial level. This is why he supports BC’s fight against the power of the federal government to impose the pipeline against the will of the province.

The independence movement still has 35% support in Quebec. That is significant. Furthermore the nationalist vote is on top of that. I don’t know how big it is but my sense is there is a lot of support for incremental gathering of power at the provincial level. That unites the PQ. CAQ, & QS although some of the CAQ vote isn’t nationalist. It’s disaffected Liberals, so my sovereigntist number is too high. Even so it illustrates why Legault might, as a sovereigntist, want PR.

  • Year …..…….(Sovereigntist/nationalist-PQ, CAQ, AD, QS)( Federalist-  Liberal)
  • 2008….…55.32…….42.08
  • 2012……65.03……..31.20
  • 2014…….56.06…….41.52
  • 2018…….70.58.…….24.82

The non-nationalist vote is probably somewhere between 25% and 45% at a rough guestimate and even 25% could be too high. Sovereigntist+nationalist is likely at least 55 to 75% of the Quebec population.

Looking at it that way PR could unite the S and N vote allowing the independence movement to gain more powers for Quebec.  Legault wants Quebec to have one income tax return like some of the other provinces. In the other provinces Canada processes the provincial part. Legault wants Quebec to process the federal part. He wants a power fight on immigration. He will likely make a big deal out of Quebec’s inability to expel immigrants.

When asked, prior to the election, if he could work with QS, Legault said “maybe on the environment”. In my opinion Legault supports PR because he believes it will help unite opposition to federal powers.

He is not a stupid man. He knows the Liberals will be back to running Quebec within one or two elections. Only PR stands in the way of their obtaining majority control of Quebec for another 15 years. It's the same situation as BC. If the NDP don't manage to change the system there is a good chance they will be locked out of government for decades again. 

Not claiming it to be fact, it’s just my theory as to why Legault appears to be enthusiastic about PR.

 

JKR

Maybe Legault just wants a fair electoral system since FPTP can not consistently provide fair results in a polity with four strong political parties?

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Maybe Legault just wants a fair electoral system since FPTP can not consistently provide fair results in a polity with four strong political parties?

I considered that possibility but Alan is convinced Legault can't be trusted and I can't say that he is wrong in that. Many a government has promised PR then backed out once they were the beneficiaries of FPTP.  

He saw that the only thing keeping the PQ together was independence but the only way they could win elections was to promise not to have a referendum. Trying to hold together the left/right plus those who wanted a referendum and those willing to drop it for power was leading to constant strife within the party. 

That situation may have led him to support PR even before he formed the CAQ. The Liberals have dominated for 15 years because of it. Even when the PQ won they weren't unified so they couldn't keep power. 

pietro_bcc

MMP benefits the CAQ (baring the establishment of any more significant political parties.)

The PQ and Liberals would never enter into a coalition with each other and QS would likely only ever enter into a coalition with the PQ, so the CAQ would almost always be a part of a governing coalition by default (unless the PQ and QS together could form a majority.) Even if they never get the most votes again the CAQ would almost be guaranteed a spot in government.

Pondering

I have also fallen into the trap of putting Legault into a right wing box.

http://rabble.ca/news/2018/10/quebecs-new-premier-not-typical-right-wing...

For instance, and this is a big one, the CAQ accepts the general Quebec consensus on climate change. Unlike Ontario’s Ford, Legault has no plans whatsoever to back out of the cap-and-trade carbon tax system Quebec now shares with California.

And unlike leaders of the right in the rest of Canada, Legault does not promise to shrink the welfare state. In fact, in his victory speech, he did not engage in the usual right-of-centre rhetoric about lowering taxes and reducing the role of the state. Instead, Legault made a point of reaffirming his and his party’s commitments to Quebec’s elderly and to its families.

The CAQ has promised a major investment to upgrade Quebec’s flawed system for housing and providing services to its older citizens. Notably, this will involve building new homes for the elderly to replace the current long-term care facilities, at a huge cost. One of Legault’s victorious star candidates, former Liberal cabinet minister Marguerite Blais, championed increased investment in services to the elderly. At the CAQ’s victory celebration cameras caught Legault embracing Blais before he vigorously promised to follow through on his commitments to senior citizens.

I feel we often demonize the right treating it as a monolith so if a person is on the "wrong" side of one issue they must also be wrong on every other. That leads to polarization like in the States although I read more and more Americans are identifying as independents. 

Legault is, in fact, a seasoned politician. After a successful career in business, where he founded the charter airline, Air Transat -- Legault held a number of senior positions in the Parti Québécois governments of Lucien Bouchard and Bernard Landry during the late 1990s and early 2000s, including heading up the ministries of education, industry and health.

When I was younger and more naive I thought having business people, as opposed to lawyers, in politics was a good idea because they could apply business skills to improve efficiency. Back then I didn't realize that the interests of business and labour so frequently clashed. I now understand the error of my ways, but it is possible Legault will improve efficiency. The civil service is too large. 

Just because someone appears to be on the right doesn't mean they have no redeeming qualities or are necessarily of bad character and selfish and generally evil. PR, independence, the environment, and many other issues are not owned by the right or left. 

Badriya

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Maybe Legault just wants a fair electoral system since FPTP can not consistently provide fair results in a polity with four strong political parties?

I considered that possibility but Alan is convinced Legault can't be trusted and I can't say that he is wrong in that. Many a government has promised PR then backed out once they were the beneficiaries of FPTP.  

He saw that the only thing keeping the PQ together was independence but the only way they could win elections was to promise not to have a referendum. Trying to hold together the left/right plus those who wanted a referendum and those willing to drop it for power was leading to constant strife within the party. 

That situation may have led him to support PR even before he formed the CAQ. The Liberals have dominated for 15 years because of it. Even when the PQ won they weren't unified so they couldn't keep power. 

To the best of my knowledge the only government in Canada to promise electoral reform and not follow through was Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government. Most governments who promised reform followed though with a referendum, though their efforts may be half hearted. BC is currently holding its third referendum on electoral reform, Ontario has held one and PEI held one, got a positive response and is now in the process of having another to determine the form electoral reform will take. There may be other examples of governments who have followed through, but I think Justin Trudeau is the only one to break their promise.

 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

I have also fallen into the trap of putting Legault into a right wing box.

http://rabble.ca/news/2018/10/quebecs-new-premier-not-typical-right-wing...

For instance, and this is a big one, the CAQ accepts the general Quebec consensus on climate change. Unlike Ontario’s Ford, Legault has no plans whatsoever to back out of the cap-and-trade carbon tax system Quebec now shares with California.

And unlike leaders of the right in the rest of Canada, Legault does not promise to shrink the welfare state. In fact, in his victory speech, he did not engage in the usual right-of-centre rhetoric about lowering taxes and reducing the role of the state. Instead, Legault made a point of reaffirming his and his party’s commitments to Quebec’s elderly and to its families.

The CAQ has promised a major investment to upgrade Quebec’s flawed system for housing and providing services to its older citizens. Notably, this will involve building new homes for the elderly to replace the current long-term care facilities, at a huge cost. One of Legault’s victorious star candidates, former Liberal cabinet minister Marguerite Blais, championed increased investment in services to the elderly. At the CAQ’s victory celebration cameras caught Legault embracing Blais before he vigorously promised to follow through on his commitments to senior citizens.

I feel we often demonize the right treating it as a monolith so if a person is on the "wrong" side of one issue they must also be wrong on every other. That leads to polarization like in the States although I read more and more Americans are identifying as independents. 

Legault is, in fact, a seasoned politician. After a successful career in business, where he founded the charter airline, Air Transat -- Legault held a number of senior positions in the Parti Québécois governments of Lucien Bouchard and Bernard Landry during the late 1990s and early 2000s, including heading up the ministries of education, industry and health.

When I was younger and more naive I thought having business people, as opposed to lawyers, in politics was a good idea because they could apply business skills to improve efficiency. Back then I didn't realize that the interests of business and labour so frequently clashed. I now understand the error of my ways, but it is possible Legault will improve efficiency. The civil service is too large. 

Just because someone appears to be on the right doesn't mean they have no redeeming qualities or are necessarily of bad character and selfish and generally evil. PR, independence, the environment, and many other issues are not owned by the right or left. 

Pondering. Really? Whats up with this new love affair for Legault? Because he opposes sovereignty (not really true btw)

That's all you have been doing this thread. One love letter to the next. What happened to Jagmeet Singh? lol.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

Pondering. Really? Whats up with this new love affair for Legault? Because he opposes sovereignty (not really true btw)

No love affair. I'm quoting from a Karl Nerenberg article so I reiterate my point about boxes. I've also been posting that Legault is a sovereigntist not a federalist although now he calls himself a nationalist. I also call his policies xenophobic.

No one here is suggesting he will institute PR out of the goodness of his heart although JKR thinks he might support it for the same reasons others do. 

I think pietro is on to something. The CAQ will always form part of government. It is unlikely the Liberals will ever win more than 50% of the popular vote so even when they win the plurality of the vote they will need support from other parties. The CAQ is their natural partner. It's unlikely they would team up with the PQ or QS. 

When CAQ wins the plurality they can choose from the Liberaks, PQ and QS to support them. 

There is a reason CAQ, QS and PQ entered into a PR pact. All of them stand to gain more power than they stand to lose. Sure CAQ won an overwhelming majority but he know that could easily flip back to the Liberals the next go around. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Fair enough. But I don't buy him as a centrist not in the least.

As for PR you make good points. But I still doubt it. I still think PR was more on his radar when he was the 2nd and 3rd place party.

Coalition governments are not necessarily a good thing.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

Fair enough. But I don't buy him as a centrist not in the least.

As for PR you make good points. But I still doubt it. I still think PR was more on his radar when he was the 2nd and 3rd place party.

Coalition governments are not necessarily a good thing.

I agree that he is not a centrist. My point is that he is generally speaking someone we would refer to as right wing. Even so he does agree with a few left wing priorities. 

I am generally not a supporter of PR but I think it might help Quebec. The Liberals cannot be in power all of the time. That becomes a dictatorship. None of the other parties are strong enough to defeat the Liberals alone. The PQ used to be able to defeat them by promising not to have referendums but as we have seen the PQ is shrinking and splitting up into natural factions. 

No matter what system we are under, PR or FPTP, the news for the left is grim. When the Quebec Liberals winning is the best hope for the left things are looking pretty bad. Without PR I think we will be dominated by the Liberals for decades to come with CAQ as the alternative once a decade. 

PR may well suit CAQ by putting them in the power position for coalitions but it is also our best hope of breaking the right wing hold on Quebec. 

People think I don't want the left to win or that I am against QS but I am not. QS the only political party I have sent money to (when GND joined) except when I became a "supporter" to vote for Trudeau. 

The success of QS proves that Quebec is not as right wing as it appears to be. Under PR QS would double their seats to 20. The PQ would also have 20 seats. Under PR QS might collect a lot of votes from people who didn't want to "waste their vote". 

I voted NDPQ this time because I knew QS would win my district. Had I been living in Chateauguay I would have voted Liberal to try to stop CAQ. Had I been living in a CAQ/QS district, I would have voted QS 

Without the distortion of FPTP we don't really know how everyone would vote. At first it could be very similar to how we vote now as people wouldn't be used to the system. 

If a "federalist" left rises in Quebec, even a small one, it would work with QS. What's left of the PQ is probably centre-left and some centre right that couldn't give up on striving for independence. 

I am convinced that Quebecers trend left not right but that it has been distorted by the referendum issue which has kept the Liberals in power. 

PR would mean it doesn't matter if QS pushes for independence. They will still almost get all the far left vote, including mine. Under PR there would be no question of my not voting  QS because my vote would definitely contribute to number of seats. Even under MMP QS would get both my votes. The PQ was the centre left party. They still got 16% this election so they would have 20 seats as well. The NDPQ might rise and take Liberal votes that would never go PQ.

So Alan you are right. PR might not happen. He might get cold feet. Opposition may be mounted by the Liberals that puts pressure on keeping FPTP. 

Right now I will give PR a 60% chance of happening. I think Quebec has a shot at being the first province to go PR because Legault is so high-handed. He has already decided on MMP, 125 seats, 75 district, the rest PR. He has a majority so nothing stopping him. 

Sean in Ottawa

Maybe the second after PEI.

Sean in Ottawa

I do not think that the CAQ can count on the Liberals only turning to them. Under PR the Quebec NDP may rise a bit more and it could be a potential conditional partner for the Liberals. I also do not think the CAQ is a better partner than either QS or the PQ. All would be difficult for the Liberals enough that I would predict that the next minority to try to govern on an issue by issue basis turning from one party to the next to get a majority. That could produce a pretty good government. Neither the Liberals nor the CAQ will want to tie themselves to a partner. Fissures in Quebec do not only go on a right left but also in terms of nationlist politics. For this reason, alliances are even less reliable than they may be elsewhere.

The other thing that has just started is the rise of green politics in Quebec. This is just the start-- where it will go and who leads it is unknown at the moment...

Pondering

Good point about all the fissures in Quebec. For example, I would say QS would pick up the environmental vote, but I suppose not if you are otherwise on the right. I much prefer minorities that work with various parties rather than forming a coalition. 

If we get PR it will be interesting to see how it impacts the existing parties and if any new ones form. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Good point about all the fissures in Quebec. For example, I would say QS would pick up the environmental vote, but I suppose not if you are otherwise on the right. I much prefer minorities that work with various parties rather than forming a coalition. 

If we get PR it will be interesting to see how it impacts the existing parties and if any new ones form. 

I would expect that after PR there would be a period that would see the creation of a number of new parties. Most of those will not survive and then a rationalization will occur. The ones that remain will have strong enough bases to be able to reach the floor limit for representation and I think there will be very few of those. I do not think PR will mean that Canada will have that many more parties represented. I do think their representation will be more accurate to how people vote and that they may rise and fall much more quickly with public sentiment. I think this is positive. I also think that the most important change will be that parties will adjust to not being able to expect majorities -- in other words all activities will be performed with the presumption that they will have to work together between elections. This is healthier as well.

For Canada the exaggeration of FPTP would not be missed: this has led to exaggerated regional differences that are more a result of the system than real differences in the views of the population. It may lead to the population in response moderating further as they see more views reflected in their legislatures across the country.

Pondering

I am pretty sold on PR for Quebec. I might get there for Canada. 

cco

If your support for an electoral system is based entirely on the advantage you think your preferred party would get, you're not a democrat.

JKR

I think the simple purpose of an electoral system is to accurately reflect the will of the electorate. Single-Member Plurality, AKA, FPTP is incapable of reflecting the will of the electorate when there are more than two candidates running in an election.

Pondering

cco wrote:
If your support for an electoral system is based entirely on the advantage you think your preferred party would get, you're not a democrat.

Different levels of government have very different responsibilities from municipal to federal Provinces are more homogenous than the country is as a whole. Regional parties like the Bloc are unlikely to arise. 

On the other hand maybe if it works well provincially I will see the federal potential in a different light. 

I'm all for the government having left the details of legalization to the provinces. This way we can compare the results from various legal and commercial and commercial perspectives.

If Quebec, and BC and PEI and maybe even New Brunswick go to proportional representation we will have a better idea of how it would work out Canada wide. We might even be able to see different systems in action. Either that, or maybe all the jurisdictions will choose MMP which would likely lead to that system being the one most people would then choose federally too. 

At heart democracy means people choosing collectively and so far the people have chosen FPTP, or at least not rebelled against it. People feel that Canada is a pretty great country, definitely among the best in the world. It's natural to feel our system has served us well and be cautious about changing it. The if it works don't break it theory. 

To a large extent I also feel we try to put pressure on politicians when the people that need to be convinced is the population. If the BC referendum fails to produce PR it will be because they people were not convinced. You can say the government didn't do a good enough job of presenting but it is not the job of the government to change people's minds. A party in power might want to do so but it is not why they were elected. They were elected to do the bidding of the people. It is not up to the people to follow the bidding of government. 

Governments make decisions without consulting us so if it is on stuff we don't get excited over the government can do as it pleases with little fallout. That is what Legault is betting on. That the people will just accept it because they don't really care one way or another or support it but that there are few who would get excited over having it imposed. 

Ever since seeing Dion's version of MMP I have been more supportive. His system doesn't require added seats and leads to people having multiple MPs representing their area that they can appeal to. I like that aspect a lot. For some reason no one else seems partial to it. 

I am more leary of racist type parties rising federally than provincially although they are a serious provincial concern as well. The threat may be equal but the impact federally would be much greater. Even at a provincial level the idea of such groups attaining official political power, even a minor amount, is threatening and insulting to minorities across Canada. Nobody should have to live with that.

I would like to see the outcome of PR on a provincial level before doing it federally. Will we end up with two year governments that take 6 months to get set up? That seems like a recipe for conservativism as it will be so difficult to get anything going. 

Supporters of PR act like there are zero drawbacks.

pietro_bcc

The CAQ just won a majority government under FPTP, not PR. It is a party based on ethnic nationalism and has laws that target specific minorities and restricts their rights and access to certain jobs. The rise of racist parties having representation in a Canadian legislature isn't a hypothetical that may occur under PR, they're already here.

JKR

Politicians know that FPTP is unsuitable for elections involving more than two candidates so political parties never use FPTP for their own elections. Unfortunately governments that assume power under FPTP have a strong incentive to keep FPTP.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Politicians know that FPTP is unsuitable for elections involving more than two candidates so political parties never use FPTP for their own elections. Unfortunately governments that assume power under FPTP have a strong incentive to keep FPTP.

Conservatives give each riding X number of votes because otherwise all the decisions would be made in Alberta favoring Albertans preventing the party from being national in scope. Some parties have had convention delegates elect a leader or even had them imposed by the party council or whatever it is. 

Pondering

pietro_bcc wrote:
The CAQ just won a majority government under FPTP, not PR. It is a party based on ethnic nationalism and has laws that target specific minorities and restricts their rights and access to certain jobs. The rise of racist parties having representation in a Canadian legislature isn't a hypothetical that may occur under PR, they're already here.

I am very unhappy about that and it took any joy I had in QS's showing away. Even so, La Meute wasn't elected and they are already saying no one will be fired and they will grandfather it so it is for new hires and the election is barely over. 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Politicians know that FPTP is unsuitable for elections involving more than two candidates so political parties never use FPTP for their own elections. Unfortunately governments that assume power under FPTP have a strong incentive to keep FPTP.

Conservatives give each riding X number of votes because otherwise all the decisions would be made in Alberta favoring Albertans preventing the party from being national in scope. Some parties have had convention delegates elect a leader or even had them imposed by the party council or whatever it is. 

The political parties seem to use every kind of system for their own elections except FPTP!

Sean in Ottawa

cco wrote:
If your support for an electoral system is based entirely on the advantage you think your preferred party would get, you're not a democrat.

That was not Pondering's point. I think she was speaking about the political culture and environment there more than the benefit to a party.

Sean in Ottawa

In seeing this evolution of position in Pondering, I cannot help but observe that at the time we had these fights over PR, the fringe element was small enough that we could debate if they could even get a foothold under FPTP. Now they are here and we need PR to stop their "more than a foothold" from total control in majority government.

This is not about any side being right. This is about the deterioration of our politics over a period of just three years.

Those debates with those against PR saying with PR the fascist / racists could get seats seem like only a short time ago.

Now we are trying to use PR to stop them from controlling government.

Awful to think about in three years what we might see in ten.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

In seeing this evolution of position in Pondering, I cannot help but observe that at the time we had these fights over PR, the fringe element was small enough that we could debate if they could even get a foothold under FPTP. Now they are here and we need PR to stop their "more than a foothold" from total control in majority government.

This is not about any side being right. This is about the deterioration of our politics over a period of just three years.

Those debates with those against PR saying with PR the fascist / racists could get seats seem like only a short time ago.

Now we are trying to use PR to stop them from controlling government.

Awful to think about in three years what we might see in ten.

I had to read that three times to understand but yes, scary. I do feel I have a good understanding of what makes swing voters tick but I never thought a Trump or a Ford could win power. Both are walking charicatures and without shame. I find it difficult to trust a public that elects the likes of them but they didn't win the popular vote. I must admit the voting system put them in place. 

In older discussions Obama and Harper were still in power but Harper was getting long in the tooth. FPTP still seemed like it would result in the right being beaten back again. Now Ford seems to have his eye on the PM's chair and the Bushes are the good ol days. 

Hard to tell for sure but it does seem like PR is on the rise. If it establishes itself provincially it will become much easier to promote federally. 

I still think that the political leanings of the population are more important than the voting system, and that democracy is predicated more on transparency and the ability to recall politicians, but I am definitely on the PR path in part because you made an excellent point. 

One the main concerns I have had over PR is the rise of racist or otherwise regressive forces on to the official political stage. CAQ is not LaMeute or even Trump but they are bad enough. 

Chretien mentioned, and he is correct, that Quebecers don't want people losing their jobs over wearing a hijab even though they don't think people should be wearing them in certain situations. That's why Legault is trying to shuffle back. It is similar to Canadians supporting Transmountain but not the government buying it. 

Trump and the Fords rose, it is awful to think what we might see in ten. Do you really think PR could save us from this right wing populism?

 

Pages