Quebec Election October 1, 2018

355 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Quebec Election October 1, 2018

Unlike Ontario, there is a path to power for Liberals in Quebec

As Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals go in Ontario’s spring election, so too will go Philippe Couillard’s ruling party in Quebec in the fall? Given the turn of the campaign for the Ontario Liberals there certainly are too many parallels to comfort their Quebec cousins. But there are also striking differences.

Wynne and Couillard became leaders of their respective parties within six weeks of each other in 2013. At the time the Liberals in both provinces seemed to have exhausted their welcome in government.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/05/23/unlike-ontari...

josh

The CAQ enjoys an advantage in the seat count far beyond its lead in the popular vote thanks to its support among francophone voters. While the gap between the CAQ and Liberals is only five points provincewide, Legault's party is 18 points ahead of the Liberals among francophones.

The CAQ has 40.2 per cent support among francophones, followed by the Liberals at 22 per cent and the PQ at 19.5 per cent. Among non-francophones, the Liberals dominate (as they usually do) with 68.3 per cent support. The CAQ follows at a distance with 10.2 per cent support among non-francophones.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-qc-poll-tracker-aug9-1.4778218

 

pietro_bcc

While I personally agree with the CAQ's idea to have a universal 8.05$ per day fee for subsidized daycare, I think its bad politics and they just hurt themselves because they're turning on a significant part of their base.

The CAQ voter base is essentially 2 groups.

1. The "I hate Muslims and non white immigrants" crowd.

2. The selfish "I don't have kids, so why should I pay school tax" crowd.

This policy position basically betrays that second group and I've already heard complaints in the media about it. The left will never support the CAQ so this makes no sense. It would be ironic if the CAQ loses because they're too much to the left of the Liberals. But, please go on, make more left wing announcements :)

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'd rather take 4 more years of Couillard than 4 days with Legault. Hopefully if that happens,the PQ can get their shit together and once again become the natural option and the CAQ can go back under their rock..

josh

New data from Léger/JdM-JdQ-LCN (Aug. 10-14): 36% CAQ (-1 since Jun. 10), 30% LIB (+2), 18% PQ (-1), 10% QS (+1), 2% GRN (=), 2% NDP (=), 1% CON (-1), 1% OTH (=)

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

'Illegal' immigrant comment draws boos and whistles at lively Quebec election skirmish

The man favoured to win Quebec's next election found himself on the receiving end of some boos and whistles over his comments about immigrants during a lively Friday night political discussion at Concordia University.

François Legault, leader of the right-leaning Coalition Avenir Québec party, provoked the reaction after outlining one of his promises to require immigrants to pass a French test within three years of arrival in order to not "find themselves in an illegal situation."

Legault’s comments came during an event, billed as a “dialogue with youth,” at the Montreal university. Representatives of all four major parties were there to take questions that had been sent in advance from Quebecers between the ages of 18 and 35.

Legault was joined on stage by Liberal leader and Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard, the Parti Québécois’ Jean-FrançoisLisée and Québec Solidaire spokesperson Manon Massé.

Couillard rejected Legault’s approach. “The best way to integrate an immigrant person into our society, it’s not to push them away for six months and put them in a class, but it is to put them in a work environment, with Quebecers, who are going to welcome them and help them learn French,” he said.

Couillard also made a point of noting his commitment to Canada with a party that is "unambiguously federalist," saying he was "proud to be Canadian" and that "being a Quebecer is my way of being a proud Canadian."

His remarks drew some applause, possibly comforting the premier who was the only one to be booed when he arrived on stage at the beginning of the event....

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

alan smithee wrote:

I'd rather take 4 more years of Couillard than 4 days with Legault. Hopefully if that happens,the PQ can get their shit together and once again become the natural option and the CAQ can go back under their rock..

This could also be the election where QS finally moves past the PQ, since QS stands for something and the PQ no longer stands for anything at all.  There's really no continued reason for the PQ to be a major force at all in Quebec politics.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The best possible achievable outcome this year would be a hung National Assembly in which QS held the balance of power.  They would at least be able to form whichever minority government that produced to be somewhat socially decent.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I'd rather take 4 more years of Couillard than 4 days with Legault. Hopefully if that happens,the PQ can get their shit together and once again become the natural option and the CAQ can go back under their rock..

This could also be the election where QS finally moves past the PQ, since QS stands for something and the PQ no longer stands for anything at all.  There's really no continued reason for the PQ to be a major force at all in Quebec politics.

That's great news. We'll see if it works out as you want.

The PQ are a secondary thought for me. I'm voting Liberal.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

alan smithee wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I'd rather take 4 more years of Couillard than 4 days with Legault. Hopefully if that happens,the PQ can get their shit together and once again become the natural option and the CAQ can go back under their rock..

This could also be the election where QS finally moves past the PQ, since QS stands for something and the PQ no longer stands for anything at all.  There's really no continued reason for the PQ to be a major force at all in Quebec politics.

That's great news. We'll see if it works out as you want.

The PQ are a secondary thought for me. I'm voting Liberal.

Understood.  And, as I pointed out to you awhile back, you live in a riding where the CAQ are unelectable.  It would take something like a 40-point swing to the CAQ from the PLQ for the CAQ even to have a chance there, and if that swing was happening there, it would probably mean the CAQ was going to win virtually every riding.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I'd rather take 4 more years of Couillard than 4 days with Legault. Hopefully if that happens,the PQ can get their shit together and once again become the natural option and the CAQ can go back under their rock..

This could also be the election where QS finally moves past the PQ, since QS stands for something and the PQ no longer stands for anything at all.  There's really no continued reason for the PQ to be a major force at all in Quebec politics.

That's great news. We'll see if it works out as you want.

The PQ are a secondary thought for me. I'm voting Liberal.

Understood.  And, as I pointed out to you awhile back, you live in a riding where the CAQ are unelectable.  It would take something like a 40-point swing to the CAQ from the PLQ for the CAQ even to have a chance there, and if that swing was happening there, it would probably mean the CAQ was going to win virtually every riding.

I hope you understand that I have no choice really. CAQ is apparently quite popular with francophones. A vote here, a vote there and CAQ could overtake this riding.

Keep in mind that the demographic has changed immensely since when I originally lived here in the early 1990's. It's now pretty high end,a yuppie village and has a large population of people from outside Quebec. It's no longer a Liberal shoe-in.

But I wasn't being sarcastic about what you said about QS. It would be fanrastic news if they finished ahead of the PQ.

However that will mean that the PQ would no longer be the natural alternative. CAQ would benefit greatly. Which kind of sucks.

I'm looking at Ontario and Donald Drumpf's blatant influence on Doug Turd. THere's nothing to suggest Legault would be any different. At least I know what Im getting from Couillard and the Liberals and as 'right wing' that they might be,I can't imagine what pundits have been pointing out constantly about the 'right leaning' CAQ. What do they mean? Whatever it is,it doesn't sound good to me.

cco

alan smithee wrote:

I hope you understand that I have no choice really. CAQ is apparently quite popular with francophones. A vote here, a vote there and CAQ could overtake this riding.

They'd have to more than quintuple their vote, leapfrogging three other parties -- all of which got over 20% of the vote last time -- to turn their 5% from 2015 into a win. At that point, unless they ran someone spectacularly popular in S-H-S-A, they'd be running the board with a 125-seat victory. Stranger things have happened, certainly, but if you're voting strategically, it's worth considering that your Liberal vote is far more likely to block a QS win in that riding than a CAQ one.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

, since QS stands for something

Have some faith Ken! Soon QS will stand for nothing at all, just like the rest of them. The tragic reality is that with the CAQ being way ahead with francophone voters, and is 6 points ahead of the Liberals in all of Quebec, and is running against 3 other parties, 36% is going to get them a Doug-Ford style majority at least. I can't see anything changing it, as it has been a long-term condition, and those things tend not to change, as in Ontario.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

progressive17 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

, since QS stands for something

Have some faith Ken! Soon QS will stand for nothing at all, just like the rest of them. The tragic reality is that with the CAQ being way ahead with francophone voters, and is 6 points ahead of the Liberals in all of Quebec, and is running against 3 other parties, 36% is going to get them a Doug-Ford style majority at least. I can't see anything changing it, as it has been a long-term condition, and those things tend not to change, as in Ontario.

Not sure why you'd say that about QS.  They've showed no signs of even considering sellout politics.  

lagatta4

Yes, I just don't get that accusation. Usually we are accused of being too "idealistic".

Now when I attend QS rallies and events I'm often one of the oldest people in the room. There has been a strong surge in youth support. Our candidate in Jeanne-Mance - Viger (St-Léonard) lives near me and we often chat: https://twitter.com/ismaelseck_qs?lang=fr St-Léonard, known for being either Italian or "Québécois de souche", has now become very multicultural and faces many problems formerly more common to the urban core.

I don't see what we can do about the CAQ but fight them; they are ecocidal (like Drug Ford) for one thing. But the Liberals have inflicted austerity on the population; especially poorer and more vulnerable people. I'd never vote for either of them.

josh

Mainstreet: 

 (Aug. 19-20): 32% CAQ, 26% LIB, 18% PQ, 14% QS, 4% GRN, 4% CON, 3% OTH

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It's going to be harder and harder for the old-line Quebec trade unionist leadership to justify staying with the PQ instead of switching to QS if this trend continues.  A four-point differerence in the polls, with the party that's four points ahead hopelessly out-of-contention, can't possibly justify the "we have to stay with the PQ, because they're ELECTABLE" argument.

You'd think they'd notice that the PQ has spent thirty-eight years now punishing labour for the 1980 referendum result.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It also leads to a real question as to whether the "Con" vote will simply bleed over to CAQ, given that CAQ has a chance to form government and the Cons, whatever their objections to the caquistes, doesn't.

bekayne

josh wrote:

Mainstreet: 

 (Aug. 19-20): 32% CAQ, 26% LIB, 18% PQ, 14% QS, 4% GRN, 4% CON, 3% OTH

https://electionsquebec2018.gcmedias.ca/Mainstreet-GCM.pdf

josh

Ipsos/La Presse (Aug 18-21): 36% CAQ, 29% LIB, 18% PQ, 11% QS

 

lagatta4

Very different posters from Québec solidaire - you can view them, there is also a video.

https://monaffiche.quebecsolidaire.net/ The "teeth" one seems to be very popular around here.

NorthReport

The clowns are still at it!

Québec solidaire clarifies: French is Quebec's only official language

Parti Québécois leaders expressed outrage after Québec solidaire said on Twitter that English was also an official language in the province.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-solidaire-clarifies-f...

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Why is ANYBODY staying with the PQ?  It can't win this election and it no longer stands for anything.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Why is ANYBODY staying with the PQ?  It can't win this election and it no longer stands for anything.

Good question. Their support has plummeted in the past 5 or 6 years. Free binders for school kids is not going to cut it. They are a party without vision and they are a party without a real plan or clue. Just sovereignty and le Québec Français nastionalism is just not resinating with the majority of voters anymore. Where do the PQ stand on the issues? They offer none. This is why they are political bottom feeders. They need a purpose -- well beyond sovereignty. The same can be said about QS except for the fact that all their billboards popping up in town emphasise the issues they stand on. On the surface,their policies are really,really good. But the sovereinty angle. It's the death nail of any party in Quebec now. This is why Legault keeps his mouth shut about it except when he's in campaign mode and he's this sudden federalist. Anyone familiar with Legault know that is a lie. It's sad that it fools so many people. CAQ has hinted in the company of some would be francophone voters that they would not bring up sovereignty until the right conditions are there. Make no mistake,Legault is a sovereigniost and the CAQ is just an ambiguous pro- sovereignty party. This clown will say ANYTHING to get elected whatever the wind blows that particular day..

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

alan smithee wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Why is ANYBODY staying with the PQ?  It can't win this election and it no longer stands for anything.

Good question. Their support have plummeted in the past 5 or 6 years. Free binders for school kids is not going to cut it. They are a party without vision and they are a party a real plan. Just sovereignty and le Québec Français nastionalism is just not resinating with the majority of voters. Where do the PQ stand on the issues? They offer none. This is why they are political bottom feeders. They need a purpose -- well beyond sovereignty. The same can be said about QS except for the fact that all their billboards popping up in town emphasising the issues they stand on. On the surface,their policies are really,really good. But the sovereinty angle. It's the death nail of any party in Quebec now. This is why Legault keeps his mouth shut about it except when he's in campaign mode and he's this sudden federalist. Anyone familiar with Legault know that is a lie. It's sad that it fools so many people. CAQ has hinted in the company of some would be francophone voters that they would not bring up sovereignty until the right conditions are there. Make no mistake,Legault is a sovereigniost and the CAQ is just an ambiguous pro- sovereignty party. This clown will say ANYTHING to get elected whatever the wind blows that particular day..

I agree that QS has yoked itself too much to sovereignty.  It should probably focus more on fighting a libertarian-socialist Quebec within which francophone culture is preserved,with constitutional arrangements be damned.  And I think QS would probably have done that if it weren't for all the fussy, sanctimonious federalists who keep treating sovereigntism as a heresy that must be renounced, who keep demanding some sort of official surrender and renunciation on that question rather than just accepting that it's a dead letter for the forseeable future and allowing it to fade back naturally, as it was clearly in the process of doing.   

The NPD-Q has likely made itself irrelevant in this election by making a big point of presenting itself as well to the right of QS, by sounding like a parody of all those right-wing "anticommunist social democrats" that cared more about proving that they weren't "left-wing" then they do about actually presenting an agenda that would help the allophone and "left-federalist" voters they claim to be representing...an agenda which, to be worth anyone supporting, would pretty much need to be "QS minus sovereigntism".  This isn't the 1950s, and nobody is going to be impressed by a "left-federalist" party which focuses more on "respectability" than on standing for anything.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

What amazes me is that the PLQ doesn't seem to even be willing to consider moving away from austerity/privatization and start offering at least some restoration of the cuts in social benefits, doesn't make some real effort to address the economic issues of working-class allophones who could be brought to the polls to vote PLQ in large numbers if only the party would stop putting low taxes for corporations ahead of all other considerations.  You'd think they'd realize that a return to Quiet Revolution policies on spending and workers' rights might save them from defeat.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Why is ANYBODY staying with the PQ?  It can't win this election and it no longer stands for anything.

Good question. Their support have plummeted in the past 5 or 6 years. Free binders for school kids is not going to cut it. They are a party without vision and they are a party a real plan. Just sovereignty and le Québec Français nastionalism is just not resinating with the majority of voters. Where do the PQ stand on the issues? They offer none. This is why they are political bottom feeders. They need a purpose -- well beyond sovereignty. The same can be said about QS except for the fact that all their billboards popping up in town emphasising the issues they stand on. On the surface,their policies are really,really good. But the sovereinty angle. It's the death nail of any party in Quebec now. This is why Legault keeps his mouth shut about it except when he's in campaign mode and he's this sudden federalist. Anyone familiar with Legault know that is a lie. It's sad that it fools so many people. CAQ has hinted in the company of some would be francophone voters that they would not bring up sovereignty until the right conditions are there. Make no mistake,Legault is a sovereigniost and the CAQ is just an ambiguous pro- sovereignty party. This clown will say ANYTHING to get elected whatever the wind blows that particular day..

I agree that QS has yoked itself too much to sovereignty.  It should probably focus more on creating a socialist Quebec, constitutional arrangements be damned.  And I think QS would probably have done that if it weren't for all the fussy, sanctimonious federalists who keep treating sovereigntism as a heresy that must be renounced, who keep demanding some sort of official surrender and renunciation on that question rather than just accepting that it's a dead letter for the forseeable future and allowing it to fade back naturally, as it was clearly in the process of doing.   

The NPD-Q has likely made itself irrelevant in this election by making a big point of presenting itself as well to the right of QS, by sounding like a parody of all those right-wing "anticommunist social democrats" that cared more about proving that they weren't "left-wing" then they do about actually presenting an agenda that would help the allophone and "left-federalist" voters they claim to be representing...an agenda which, to be worth anyone supporting, would pretty much need to be "QS minus sovereigntism".  This isn't the 1950s, and nobody is going to be impressed by a "left-federalist" party which focuses more on "respectability" than on standing for anything.

You're right. It's not the 1950's or 60's or 70's I'm not taking a crap on sovereignty.I'm just suggesting the interesting pattern with parties who aggressively seek sovereignty. Just look at the PQ. Just look at Legault. The PQ's main issue is sovereignty,they are at 15%. The LIberals are at 36% and Legault lies about being federalist and the CAQ are at 38%. See the pattern?

josh

Other than sovereignty, how is the NDP-Q distinguishing itself to the right of QS?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And I think QS would probably have done that if it weren't for all the fussy, sanctimonious federalists who keep treating sovereigntism as a heresy that must be renounced, who keep demanding some sort of official surrender and renunciation on that question rather than just accepting that it's a dead letter for the forseeable future and allowing it to fade back naturally, as it was clearly in the process of doing.  

Are you saying that QS would have likely back-burnered sovereignty, if it weren't for non-QS-supporters not supporting sovereignty??

That's like saying "McDonald's would have abandoned the Big Mac years ago, if it weren't for so many people telling them they should abandon the Big Mac".

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
And I think QS would probably have done that if it weren't for all the fussy, sanctimonious federalists who keep treating sovereigntism as a heresy that must be renounced, who keep demanding some sort of official surrender and renunciation on that question rather than just accepting that it's a dead letter for the forseeable future and allowing it to fade back naturally, as it was clearly in the process of doing.  

Are you saying that QS would have likely back-burnered sovereignty, if it weren't for non-QS-supporters not supporting sovereignty??

That's like saying "McDonald's would have abandoned the Big Mac years ago, if it weren't for so many people telling them they should abandon the Big Mac".

What I'm saying is that sovereigntism is one of those ideas that, if you try to MAKE somebody renounce it, will simply provoke them to hold onto it stubbornly.  People will let go of something like sovereigntism if they are allowed to get to the letting go on their own-if you push them to let go of it, if you make a big deal of insisting that it be renouced and defeated officially once and for all, you're going to bring it back, because the worst way to get somebody to put an idea aside is to demand that they admit they were wrong about it.  Best simply not to mention it as an issue, since it's clearly not going to happen anytime soon, if ever, no matter who gets the most seats in the National Assembly.

It's simply not worth actively trying to "end" sovereigntism anymore...it will fade away on its own if it's simply left alone as an issue.  

There's no need to insist on surrender.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What I'm saying is that sovereigntism is one of those ideas that, if you try to MAKE somebody renounce it, will simply provoke them to hold onto it stubbornly.

I dunno, Ken.  Demand that I renounce the link between vaccination and autism.  I'll fold faster than Superman on laundry day.  Because I don't believe in that link.

If QS believes in sovereignty then they should stick to it.  Totally their right.  But not because someone else doesn't like it.  Behaviour like that is probably common among individuals ("The food guide says eat broccoli?  Fuck that, I'mma eat five pounds of deep fried bacon!!") but it doesn't really make as much sense for representatives.

Quote:
because the worst way to get somebody to put an idea aside is to demand that they admit they were wrong about it.

That's splitting a pretty fine hair.

How can we expect flat-earthers to admit that the earth is pretty much spheroid, while never alluding to the fact that they used to think it was more like a checkers board? 

If you had honestly supported the "checkers board" model, I'm not sure how you could then embrace the "more like a marble" model without feeling in any way sheepish about the checkers board.  But if you KNOW that the checkers board model is wrong, are you going to hold out just to save face?  Dig in your heels just to spite the "marble" people?

QS could walk away from sovereignty without having to do it on their knees, or beg forgiveness, or mumble new oaths.

If anyone would continue to give them grief over such a choice, I don't think it would be the federalists rubbing it in.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
What I'm saying is that sovereigntism is one of those ideas that, if you try to MAKE somebody renounce it, will simply provoke them to hold onto it stubbornly.

I dunno, Ken.  Demand that I renounce the link between vaccination and autism.  I'll fold faster than Superman on laundry day.  Because I don't believe in that link.

If QS believes in sovereignty then they should stick to it.  Totally their right.  But not because someone else doesn't like it.  Behaviour like that is probably common among individuals ("The food guide says eat broccoli?  Fuck that, I'mma eat five pounds of deep fried bacon!!") but it doesn't really make as much sense for representatives.

Quote:
because the worst way to get somebody to put an idea aside is to demand that they admit they were wrong about it.

That's splitting a pretty fine hair.

How can we expect flat-earthers to admit that the earth is pretty much spheroid, while never alluding to the fact that they used to think it was more like a checkers board? 

If you had honestly supported the "checkers board" model, I'm not sure how you could then embrace the "more like a marble" model without feeling in any way sheepish about the checkers board.  But if you KNOW that the checkers board model is wrong, are you going to hold out just to save face?  Dig in your heels just to spite the "marble" people?

QS could walk away from sovereignty without having to do it on their knees, or beg forgiveness, or mumble new oaths.

If anyone would continue to give them grief over such a choice, I don't think it would be the federalists rubbing it in.

It's effectively a moot point whether they formally walk away from it or not.  It's off the table and would be off the table even if a QS government was elected.  

And, as I said, NPD-Q has denied themselves any chance to make major gains by presenting themselves as "center-left", a place on the spectrum that no longer means anything-it's inhabited solely by Blairites and the sort of European Social Democratic parties that are just as pro-austerity as the right-wing parties they supposedly oppose-rather than a "radical, but federalist" option.  They should have offered what NOBODY has offered in this election in Quebec: the chance to vote for a clearly Left program, but without sovereigntism.  Instead of that, they fell into the "we're 'moderate', we're 'respectable' " trap the center-left has kept falling into since the Eighties...the place on the spectrum which holds no votes.

Also, "the flat earth" and "anti-vaxxer" analogies don't work;  those positions are anti-empirical; to hold them, you have to be delusional.  Sovereigntism is simply a valid reaction to events in Quebec in the Seventies but is far less useful now.  There's no reason to believe that an independent Quebec, or even a sovereigntist-associationist Quebec, would have any greater freedom to implement egalitarian policies than a federalist Quebec, or even, necessarily, to do anything more to protect the francophone heritage/culture/community of communities today.  

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

How can we expect flat-earthers to admit that the earth is pretty much spheroid, while never alluding to the fact that they used to think it was more like a checkers board? 

If you had honestly supported the "checkers board" model, I'm not sure how you could then embrace the "more like a marble" model without feeling in any way sheepish about the checkers board.  But if you KNOW that the checkers board model is wrong, are you going to hold out just to save face?  Dig in your heels just to spite the "marble" people?

 

If the world were flat, cats would have pushed everything off of it by now. This would be the best explanation for a flat-earther.

I live in the Quebec riding of the disgraced Sklavanos, which had left us with no MNA for quite some time. So I am happy I will now have a real MNA from a real party, even if it is the feces-like PLQ. The PLQ, the CAQ, the PQ, QS, and the NDP-Q have all hit the ground running with signs. The PLQ, CAQ, and QS candidates do not look very trustworthy to me. I would like to punch them all in the face. So it is between the PQ and the NDP-Q for me on the basis of candidates. The PLQ have said on their signs that they would make life better for us if they got re-elected. They did not do that for me in the last 4 years, so I have no reason to believe they will do so again in the next 4 years. Thus in terms of incumbency I have to vote for one of the ones who are there to replace the PLQ. One of the PQ signs has the fleur-de-lys as little birds, which presumably represents money flying out of Quebec once they get elected. However the PQ gets the most marks for an imaginative ad campaign. QS wants free post-secondary education for everybody, however with what little I am left after paying for various Quebec taxes I am not too sure I can bear any more. And I am making barely more than minimum wage. Manon Masse also said that life should not be about working, which was a real blunder so far as I could see. If I did not work, I could not pay my rent, and I would be homeless. When I work, I can buy the things I need like food.
My agency told me I have another week's work, so I have some job security for the next week.

I understand the Bloc Pot may be running a candidate, which might be a good home for my vote.

What a wretched group of choices! 

lagatta4

First of all, Manon's name is Massé, not Masse (which is also a name common here). I have known Andrés Fonticella for many years, at least since 1990, working in groupes populaires in Villeray, where I lived at the time, just a few blocks from where I live now. I have absolutely no reason to doubt his integrity and commitment to improving life for people in the riding. He was co-ordinator of the Solidarités Villeray table for many years, and responsible for many initiatives "making people's lives easier", to quote the ridiculous PLQ slogan. He is the son of Chilean refugees, and also committed to international solidarity.

The little birds are QS, not PQ, and represent "writing" Québec and creativity.

And frankly, are you really unable to understand what Manon says about life and work? She has also worked in community groups and women's groups for many, many years, including with homeless and street people. Try looking her in the eye and say she doesn't care if people have jobs and a decent place to live. The idea that life should not be only about work goes back to the earliest days of socialist, mutualist and anarchist movements, and also spurred a great interest in continuing education in the labour movement.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Sorry, my current keyboard does not do French accents. I am sorry if my technological disability offends you.

And whatever climbdown you want from her statement saying that life was not about work, as a worker I found it incredibly offensive. Even in hunter-gatherer societies, we had to hunt and gather in order to eat. We had to make or seek shelters, and make clothes and bedding. Human beings cannot survive without real physical work being done. Perhaps there are some who are so far removed from real physical work that they think it is a curse. This kind of ridiculous idealism can only lead to starvation and death, ironically from your own socialist dicator.

lagatta4

If you are lacking a letter or character needed to write a name already used in a thread, you can simply copy the name (or the letter or other sign) and then insert it in the text.

Manon is not at all removed from physical work. She comes from a small town near Sherbrooke and her parents were both manual workers and she definitely did hard physical work (both for wages and subsistence farming) before she was an adult. You are assuming a lot of things about people you don't know, and just in general being rather insulting to many people on the board. And putting the PLQ (CORRUPT!) on the same level as QS and judging candidates from their photos.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

progressive17 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

How can we expect flat-earthers to admit that the earth is pretty much spheroid, while never alluding to the fact that they used to think it was more like a checkers board? 

If you had honestly supported the "checkers board" model, I'm not sure how you could then embrace the "more like a marble" model without feeling in any way sheepish about the checkers board.  But if you KNOW that the checkers board model is wrong, are you going to hold out just to save face?  Dig in your heels just to spite the "marble" people?

 

If the world were flat, cats would have pushed everything off of it by now. This would be the best explanation for a flat-earther.

I live in the Quebec riding of the disgraced Sklavanos, which had left us with no MNA for quite some time. So I am happy I will now have a real MNA from a real party, even if it is the feces-like PLQ. The PLQ, the CAQ, the PQ, QS, and the NDP-Q have all hit the ground running with signs. The PLQ, CAQ, and QS candidates do not look very trustworthy to me. I would like to punch them all in the face. So it is between the PQ and the NDP-Q for me on the basis of candidates. The PLQ have said on their signs that they would make life better for us if they got re-elected. They did not do that for me in the last 4 years, so I have no reason to believe they will do so again in the next 4 years. Thus in terms of incumbency I have to vote for one of the ones who are there to replace the PLQ. One of the PQ signs has the fleur-de-lys as little birds, which presumably represents money flying out of Quebec once they get elected. However the PQ gets the most marks for an imaginative ad campaign. QS wants free post-secondary education for everybody, however with what little I am left after paying for various Quebec taxes I am not too sure I can bear any more. And I am making barely more than minimum wage. Manon Masse also said that life should not be about working, which was a real blunder so far as I could see. If I did not work, I could not pay my rent, and I would be homeless. When I work, I can buy the things I need like food.
My agency told me I have another week's work, so I have some job security for the next week.

I understand the Bloc Pot may be running a candidate, which might be a good home for my vote.

What a wretched group of choices! 

She wasn't encouraging people to simply STOP working-she was saying that we should be paid well enough, and work few enough hours for that pay, and have a real say in how our workplaces are run, so that we can have a meaningful life outside of work and that work will not be soulless drudgery.  She wasn't disrespecting you as a worker and she has always BEEN a worker.  It sounds like you were just looking for an excuse to not support the only progressive party in Quebec, and to give your vote instead to the PQ, a party which no longer has any core values and offers no real solutions to anything(I support the right of the people of Quebec to self-determination, but at this point, it is clear that sovereignty-association would make no positive difference in the lives of most people there).  Why support a party that is doomed to continue in a pattern of long-term decline and decay?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

progressive17 wrote:

Sorry, my current keyboard does not do French accents. I am sorry if my technological disability offends you.

And whatever climbdown you want from her statement saying that life was not about work, as a worker I found it incredibly offensive. Even in hunter-gatherer societies, we had to hunt and gather in order to eat. We had to make or seek shelters, and make clothes and bedding. Human beings cannot survive without real physical work being done. Perhaps there are some who are so far removed from real physical work that they think it is a curse. This kind of ridiculous idealism can only lead to starvation and death, ironically from your own socialist dicator.

Wow. Babble is now being inundated with Trumptards. Isn't this a progressive board? That was a real right wing comment. Not like the fake ' right wing'  comments I may have made in the past. Kind of assholish if you ask me.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

alan smithee wrote:

progressive17 wrote:

Sorry, my current keyboard does not do French accents. I am sorry if my technological disability offends you.

And whatever climbdown you want from her statement saying that life was not about work, as a worker I found it incredibly offensive. Even in hunter-gatherer societies, we had to hunt and gather in order to eat. We had to make or seek shelters, and make clothes and bedding. Human beings cannot survive without real physical work being done. Perhaps there are some who are so far removed from real physical work that they think it is a curse. This kind of ridiculous idealism can only lead to starvation and death, ironically from your own socialist dicator.

Wow. Babble is now being inundated with Trumptards. Isn't this a progressive board? That was a real right wing comment. Not like the fake ' right wing'  comments I may have made in the past. Kind of assholish if you ask me.

I'd like to associate myself with Alan's sentiments here(though Alan and I have BOTH now agreed that the use of the " -tard" suffix was inappropriate).

 

JKR

progressive17 wrote:

Even in hunter-gatherer societies, we had to hunt and gather in order to eat. We had to make or seek shelters, and make clothes and bedding. Human beings cannot survive without real physical work being done. Perhaps there are some who are so far removed from real physical work that they think it is a curse. This kind of ridiculous idealism can only lead to starvation and death, ironically from your own socialist dicator.

Weren't hunter/gatherer societies socialist? Aren't modern day capitalist societies like Canada producing excessive amounts of products? It seems to me that our capitalist culture that stresses our need to quench unending desires is leading to global human destruction. It seems to me that hunter/gatherers lived in much greater equilibrium with each other and the earth. Anthropologist also say that they had much more recretional time than we do!

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

JKR wrote:
progressive17 wrote:

Even in hunter-gatherer societies, we had to hunt and gather in order to eat. We had to make or seek shelters, and make clothes and bedding. Human beings cannot survive without real physical work being done. Perhaps there are some who are so far removed from real physical work that they think it is a curse. This kind of ridiculous idealism can only lead to starvation and death, ironically from your own socialist dicator.

Weren't hunter/gatherer societies socialist? Aren't modern day capitalist societies like Canada producing excessive amounts of products? It seems to me that our capitalist culture that stresses our need to quench unending desires is leading to global human destruction. It seems to me that hunter/gatherers lived in much greater equilibrium with each other and the earth. Anthropologist also say that they had much more recretional time than we do!

All true.  And against, the thing progressive17 too offense to was never an attack on working people at all, nor was it a call for people to simply cease to work.  It was a call for a world in which most people wouldn't have to live lives of work, respiration, reproduction, a few hours of sleep, and nothing else.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It's effectively a moot point whether they formally walk away from it or not.  It's off the table and would be off the table even if a QS government was elected.

Likewise, access to abortion.  But if some party, or even a caucus within a party, starts making that kind of noise, we seem to think they're committed enough to it to be worth our notice.  And no, I'm not saying that opposing reproductive rights is the same as being a sovereigntist.  Just that "don't worry, it will never happen, so ignore the people promising to make it happen" is uncomforting.

Quote:
Also, "the flat earth" and "anti-vaxxer" analogies don't work;  those positions are anti-empirical; to hold them, you have to be delusional.  Sovereigntism is simply a valid reaction to events in Quebec in the Seventies but is far less useful now.

Again, not trying to equate sovereigntism with flat-earthers.  But if people holding silly ideas only dig their heels in harder if someone thinks they're silly ideas, what are we left with?

"I cannot challenge this flat-earther, because to do so would only force him to believe even harder in a flat earth".

If something makes sense to you, then it should make sense to you even if someone you don't like thinks it makes sense too.

Quote:
I'd like to associate myself with Alan's sentiments here.

You might make an exception for "Trumptards".

Quote:
Isn't this a progressive board?

Well, you just said "Trumptards".  If that's OK here, then... no.

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

It was a call for a world in which most people wouldn't have to live lives of work, respiration, reproduction, a few hours of sleep, and nothing else.

Some capitalists might not like it but working people also have basic human requirements that include fraternity, recreation and, spirituality.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It's effectively a moot point whether they formally walk away from it or not.  It's off the table and would be off the table even if a QS government was elected.

Likewise, access to abortion.  But if some party, or even a caucus within a party, starts making that kind of noise, we seem to think they're committed enough to it to be worth our notice.  And no, I'm not saying that opposing reproductive rights is the same as being a sovereigntist.  Just that "don't worry, it will never happen, so ignore the people promising to make it happen" is uncomforting.

Quote:
Also, "the flat earth" and "anti-vaxxer" analogies don't work;  those positions are anti-empirical; to hold them, you have to be delusional.  Sovereigntism is simply a valid reaction to events in Quebec in the Seventies but is far less useful now.

Again, not trying to equate sovereigntism with flat-earthers.  But if people holding silly ideas only dig their heels in harder if someone thinks they're silly ideas, what are we left with?

"I cannot challenge this flat-earther, because to do so would only force him to believe even harder in a flat earth".

If something makes sense to you, then it should make sense to you even if someone you don't like thinks it makes sense too.

Quote:
I'd like to associate myself with Alan's sentiments here.

You might make an exception for "Trumptards".

Quote:
Isn't this a progressive board?

Well, you just said "Trumptards".  If that's OK here, then... no.

You know how many times I've been called a ' libtard' ? More times than you've had a hot meal. I think most of us are capable of recognizing words used in context. If it offends you that much perhaps you should smoke a fatty and learn how to chill out.

If I have to apologize for what I said, Fine. But where is your outrage of the uber-right wing comment I was referring to?

Nope. Easier to pile on the person you have a personal axe to grind.

How about Trumpster? Does that pass your outrage litmus test?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You know how many times I've been called a ' libtard' ? More times than you've had a hot meal. I think most of us are capable of recognizing words used in context. If it offends you that much perhaps you should smoke a fatty and learn how to chill out.

I was once called a "WinTard" -- by a former poster who was very emotionally invested in Linux.

Meanwhile, if riffs on "retard" are OK here now, I'd like Meg to tell us that, officially.  And then we'll have another shitball to throw at each other and that will be awesome.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
You know how many times I've been called a ' libtard' ? More times than you've had a hot meal. I think most of us are capable of recognizing words used in context. If it offends you that much perhaps you should smoke a fatty and learn how to chill out.

I was once called a "WinTard" -- by a former poster who was very emotionally invested in Linux.

Meanwhile, if riffs on "retard" are OK here now, I'd like Meg to tell us that, officially.  And then we'll have another shitball to throw at each other and that will be awesome.

Yeah. That would be awesome. I can't wait.

NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yeah. That would be awesome. I can't wait.

You didn't.

lagatta4

North Report, while I suspect they have a driver, both those venues would be a short cycle ride from Gouin. These are densely populated urban ridings.

I do agree that the tard expressions are offensive, even when they address cats.

NorthReport
NorthReport

I know it’s a big leap but any possibility of QS becoming the official opposition?

Pages