Quebec Election October 1, 2018

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 :)

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 (=)

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 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?

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".

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.

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! 

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.