Quebec Election October 1, 2018

Pondering wrote:

It's like QS is determined to push me away. They are willing to work with CAQ and the PQ but not the Liberals in a minority situation. The best case scenario (realistically) for me would have been a Liberal minority with QS having the balance of power to force more progressive policy. Second best would be a Liberal majority. 

My vote is meaningless. QS will win my riding, but their claims to progressiveness are a sham if they follow through and support CAQ. It shows me where QS priorities lie. In that case I hope they lose every seat they have in the next election. 

I've calmed down a bit since watching this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB4QFbKIDt4&t=621s

QS understands marketing. Watch some of it even if you don't understand French. She discusses some great elements in the program but that isn't the primary strength of the interview. The other leaders all stupidly declined interviews. This video has almost 90K views in 2 days. Manon Masse is a quintessential down to earth Quebecois woman. This is a woman most Quebecers would want to work with and party with and have as a relative. She is so relatable she absolutely shines in this video. I can't not understand what she was saying but even if I didn't I would still be saying "yeah put her in charge!". That is the strength of having a populist appeal. 

Check out the video, even if you don't understand French. They drink wine and inhale helium. Quebec politics at its finest. 

It just infuriates me that they are willing to work with the CAQ and PQ but not the Liberals. 

 

QS working with CAQ is par for the course in the 'progressive' movement. Today's progresives would much rather work with regressives or have a regressive government as long as the Liberals lose. The same thing is happening in the States where so-called progressives would rather the Republican win over an 'establishment' Democrat.

It's been the reason why I have been alienated more and more by the 'progressive' movement.

A good example would be all the wringing of hands in pleasure and anticipation of Wynne's Liberals losing. Sure,the NDP are the opposition but who cares? Look at what kind of government you cheerleaded for. And for the next 4 years 'progresives' will be bitching and complaining about their 'fascist' government. All the while with the Liberals promising more in social spending and increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr. So spare us the outrage as Ford drains your social safety net dry all for the ideology of hating the poor and privatizes EVERYTHING.. Bravo,give yourselves a hand.

The PLQ has promised, long before the election that their austerity policies have been fulfilled and they were now ready to reinvest in the public.

Instead 'progressives' look forward to work with a FAR more Conservative,regressive and auteritic (if that's a word) party at the cost of the Liberals. And explain just how much power you'd hold working with  spectacularly opposite ideologies and values?

I hope the PLQ pulls one out of their ass and wins a majority. At this point, I would love it more than life itself.

Quote:

The PLQ has promised, long before the election that their austerity policies have been fulfilled and they were now ready to reinvest in the public.

Well, if they're saying that the chequebook has been balanced, or even if they're saying that it's close enough to start putting impulse purchases on the credit card again, any party can enjoy that, yes?

They may as well be saying "whoever you choose, at least they won't inherit a huge deficit".

I think QS's "we'll work with any party" is more "leaving their options open and trying to scoop up votes from everywhere possible" than "declaring their intention to support the CAQ". I stand by my prediction that if it's a CAQ minority, the Liberals will back them, but if not, the PQ will. I can't come up with any scenario where QS and QS alone is the linchpin for the survival of a CAQ government. What could the CAQ possibly offer QS that would outweigh QS's voters defecting en masse? The best they could do is offer [i]not[/i] to implement a couple of the things they're campaigning on.

If QS can twist the arms of one of the bigger parties into getting better policy for ordinary people, why does it matter which party's arm they twist?

Pondering wrote:

It's like QS is determined to push me away. They are willing to work with CAQ and the PQ but not the Liberals in a minority situation.

Where did they say this? This would be a surprise to me, since the CAQ is rigidly opposed to building a new subway line that was key to Mayor Plante's platform.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Not all parties would use a balanced cheque book as an excuse to invest back in to public services

Fair enough.  I was only suggesting that any party COULD.   As to any party inheriting a balanced budget but still proclaiming "things are a mess", I hope we would look at that budget before their statement.  There's literally NO situation in which a party cannot say "this is a mess", yes?

It certainly could. But over the past few decades, Conservatives in particular, always claim that the previous government was lying about the deficit and it's always double what the previous government had said. Always. I could see the cuts to social services from a mile away. In fact that was announced 24 hours or less afyer the Finance Minister made his estimation. They use it to  as an excuse to strip the welfare state down to the bone and privatize everything which is their main priority.

I don't trust Conservative governments. The Quebec Liberals announced they balanced the budget and would now invest in public services. They said their austerity is done.

Buit I bet you dimes for donuts that a right wing party like CAQ would look directly at the public and with a straight face, acccuse the previous government were lying and that there is some sort of deficit to excuse cutting services just like Doug Fart. It's what Conservative governments do --- all the time.

I only trust the PQ and QS to invest in services if the budget really is balanced and as the Liberals said, their austerity policies are over.

So you're right but you overlook the callousness of the right wing. I predict that if CAQ becomes the government in October, the first thing they are going to do is lie and say there is a deficit and the first thing they will do is make 'tough decisions' and attack the welfare state and  privatize everything starting with Hydro Quebec.. I guarantee it.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-surge-by-left-wing-quebec...

In Le Journal de Québec of all places, Québec solidaire the only party supporting the demands of our tenants' rights coalition: https://www.journaldequebec.com/2018/09/26/le-sens-des-priorites-des-che...

I know the woman in green in the wheelchair on the left of the photo; she is a member of my tenants' association. I believe that she is currently on our Board.

There is a real gap between housing costs here and say, Toronto or Vancouver; in those cities a house worth half a million dollars would be a very ordinary house. This came up when the Liberal government actually made a settlement with Québec medical specialists giving them MORE money than  their counterparts in Ontario. But there are many people here who are still spending more than half their meagre incomes on housing.

The CAQ and the Liberals are neck and neck. QS being wildly successful means matching or surpassing the PQ not winning the election. The Liberals or the CAQ will likely win a minority. To pass legislation they will need support from another party. 

If the CAQ wins their right-wing legislation cutting taxes and services and passing regressive language laws will be supported by the Liberals if not supporting it means triggering another election. 

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/quebec-election-heres-what-a-min...

 On Radio-Canada’s Tout le monde en parle show Sunday, Québec solidaire’s Manon Massé said her party would not support a Liberal minority because it’s against proportional representation. That implies QS could support the CAQ or PQ, both of which have said they will change Quebec’s voting system. On the same show, François Legault, whose right-wing CAQ is far to the right of the leftist QS, sounded conciliatory and ready to make a deal, suggesting he would listen to QS’s environmental proposals.

Not my underlining/bolding. It's a link in the original article. Looking at the current political landscape best case scenario is a Liberal minority with QS strong enough to hold their feet to the fire forcing them to spend the surplus progressively. QS would finally have an opportunity to leverage the seats that they win to promote progressive policy. QS has now ruled that out. They will only cooperate with the PQ and CAQ because nothing is more important than PR no matter who suffers as a result. 

The majority of parties/reps in Quebec are neoliberal. PR would give them the power  to take turns supporting each other's regressive legislation even if they fought each other for seats during election periods. 

The Liberals are offering free public transportation province wide for students and seniors. Meager pickings but way better than nothing. 

QS has wonderful ideas, like 24/7 CLSCs and much more, but their priority is PR no matter what it costs the poor and minorities and immigrants. 

Then there is this:

http://www.iheartradio.ca/cjad/news/quebec-solidaire-would-move-quickly-...

A Quebec Solidaire government would begin the process of taking Quebec out of Canada within its first mandate, says one of the party's co-spokespeople, Manon Massé.

Speaking outside the National Assembly on Sunday, Massé announced that at some point during that first mandate, she would instruct her finance ministry to order studies the cost of an independent Quebec.

The party has long stated that it plans to form what's called a "constituent assembly", elected by Quebecers, which would be tasked with formulating a Quebec constitution. A referendum would then be held on that constitution, and a Yes vote would then lead to Quebec declaring independence.

Massé pointed out that what's good for Canada as a whole isn't necessarily good for Quebec — using the federal government's purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline as an example — and suggesting that "each dollar invested in Ottawa is invested by a Parliament that juggles with irreconcilable interests in an irreformable federalism."

When asked about whether a sovereign Quebec could be partitioned, she suggested that if Quebecers have the right to self-determination, than so do Indigenous peoples. There was no mention of whether strongly federalist areas of western Montreal and western Quebec would be entitled to break away from an independent Quebec.

There has to be a balance between promoting what a party believes to be the best path and representing what the people want. Right now the majority of the people of Quebec want sovereignty or separation or whatever the hell you want to call it on the back-burner. We don't want to talk about it. This is not an issue like racism or LGBTQ rights in which principle and justice must take precedence over political expediency. Quebec independence is not being denied. The people of Quebec have democratically rejected it. That doesn't mean it can't be promoted by those who believe it would be best for the people of Quebec but it is not a matter of principle or justice. The people of Quebec have self-determination. 

If QS were ever to win their first priority is independence not social justice. 

That might not be enough to dampen support for QS but she did more. She crossed a red line. Partitioning Quebec. To even say the word is sacrilegious in Quebec. The people of Quebec would not trade territory for independence. 

QS just took a huge step backwards if this is widely publicized. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

1) I believe that sovereignty is off the agenda for a long time to come, if it ever comes back.   In theory, future events could bring it back at some later date, but far enough a way that it should have no bearing on, for example, the question of whether or not someone vots QS.

OK.  I guess Quebec voters should support QS until such time as that support is sufficient to lead to them  forming government and following through on their promise?

IOW, "keep voting for them as long as they're in third place"?

Quote:

At the same time, I still support, as any person of the left should feel obliged to, Quebec's right to self-determination, because if you're on the left, you support the right to self-determination as a first principle.

I absolutely support it.  But I also support the right of some Quebecers to not want sovereignty, and to therefore play it safe by voting for parties that don't promise to hold another referendum under their first mandate.

It's you who's saying "oh, heck, give them a chance!  They'll never win and if they do then they'll never hold that referendum and if they do then the electorate will never support it, and if they do we can all deal with it then".

I don't think equal marriage is going to be repealed, and I don't think that reproductive rights are going to be repealed, and for the record I don't think either is "the same as" sovereignty.  But we do seem to take it seriously when even a wee little "twelfth" party wants to roll back equal rights or reproductive rights, even when we know they're going pop the bubbly if they so much as break 1% of the popular vote.  In short, it's OK to not electorally support things you don't electorally support, yes?

This is the same thing.  If it's that important to QS then they can certainly campaign on it, but if some voters don't want that, what should those voters do?  Where should those voters go?

 

Even if QS did win this time(which isn't likely) they would look at the numbers and see that there's not anything close to a majority for sovereigntism.  They aren't bloody-minded.  And as to their attitude towards working with the PLQ, well, has it occurred to anybody to start pressing the PLQ to be open to pr?  

Well if QS is not dedicated to social justice, they do not deserve my vote. Earlier in the campaign I was shitting my pants about CAQ winning my riding. I said I'd vote Liberal to stop it. After reflection,I realized my riding wasn't going to the CAQ and sobered up made up my mind to vote with my conscience for the party I THOUGHT most reflected my values.

Voting QS and them turning around and working with CAQ would be a wild betrayal of my vote. The PLQ aren't great but they have made much better promises than CAQ and said they would stop their austerity to spend their surplus on the public. CAQ would use that surplus to cut taxes for corporations and piss it away and turn around and tell the public it must make 'tough choices' and cut social spending to the bone and privatize everything just like Doug Fart.

PR isn't more important to me than social justice,social spending and protecting minorities and the disenfranchized such as the LGBTQ. PR is not a top priority for me. Voting QS is voting CAQ. So bye bye QS vote. You're not getting it from me.

The PLQ has my complete support.

Ken Burch wrote:

QS never actually said they'd work with the CAQ.  They said they'd work with any party which would bring in PR.  Quebec has to bring in pr or else progressive governance is impossible-under FPTP, only right-of-center corporate parties have a chance of forming government now.  There is nothing in QS's statement that justifies people denoncing the party here, and no greater good would be served by QS not gaining seats and votes.  No other party in Quebec that has any chance of winning seats is supporting anything significantly progressive.

You can vote for whatever you want, Alan, but you know perfectly well we'd never actually see a CAQ-QS coalition.

You just said that they would work with any party in favour of PR. CAQ is LYING about supporting such legislation but QS would support them. Why not vote PLQ if my QS vote is essentially a CAQ vote? Seriously.

At least the PLQ has promised to end their austerity agenda,that everything has since been paid off. How about CAQ? Not in the least and to make things even more outrageous, CAQ is socially conservative. Something I LOATHE more than anything. What is QS going to get from CAQ if they support them? They aren't going to get PR that's for sure. They are not going to get a spittle of progressive legislation passed with the CAQ. Oh, some environmental legislation like not dumping sewage into the St. Lawrence. Please. QS won't work with the PLQ because of GND. He still holds a grudge against Charest from 15 years ago and that's the motivation. Sort of like how most here despise the Federal Liberals because of Paul Martin's cuts 20 fucking years ago or Pierre Trudeau's war measures act from 50 years ago. It's why all these so called 'progressives' would rather cut their nose from their face and cheerlead Conservative victories rather than a Liberal government. And let's be honest,Ken. The Liberals and Conservatives are NOT the same. At least in the past 20 years. Would cannabis have been legalized under a Tory government? NO. Would there be infrastructure spending instead of cuts? NO. Enough with the petty vindictiveness. It's not doing any of us any favours.

Alan, you are really not looking at the social dynamics of the campaign. QS knows very well that the CAC will renege on PR if they are elected. The PLQ is corrupt to the core and otherwise disgusting. Recognising that is not holding a grudge. Look at them in Laurier-Dorion, substituting their groper with his closest aide.

alan smithee wrote:

 The PLQ has my complete support.

I'm between the NDPQ and  the Liberals. I am far closer to the NDPQ and  I do want to encourage them but I will probably hold my nose and vote PLQ. The popular vote counts even if it isn't reflected in seats. This is particularly true because the Liberals are the incumbents.

I hope if the Liberals do win a minority that QS backtracks and works with the Liberals. 

swallow wrote:

Increasingly convinced that Gilles Duceppe is just an asshole and no more analysis of his opinions is needed than "there goes that asshole again." Too bad, he was once a marvellous political leader. 

Sadly, that's all correct.

Quote:

Torn on whether to vote QS or PLQ (as the most likely way way to stop CAQ from governing).

Let me help you with your dilemma. Vote QS.

Unionist wrote:

Quote:

Torn on whether to vote QS or PLQ (as the most likely way way to stop CAQ from governing).

Let me help you with your dilemma. Vote QS.

That sounds like the best option. All this speculation about who will prop up who is great at selling newspapers, but these theories don't matter until the actual votes are counted and the negotiations begin. I would say that QS openly speculating about which party they would or wouldn't support was a communications blunder, and that a much better answer would be, without naming names, to promise to fight for those elements of their platform that are popular with the public. Best immediate result would be to elect as many QS MNAs as possible so they have more leverage regardless of who's elected.

As for the soveriegnty thing? It might be an issue if QS had more than 30% of the vote and/or were on the verge of winning government. That is not the case this time around. Still, it is an issue they are going to have to contend with, and it will be under much more scrutiny now that they are on the rise. That issue could cause them to hit a wall, as a majority of MNAs elected since 2003 were federalists. So how do things play out? Can they develop this idea in a way that is acceptable to federalists? Will this cause an opportunity for the NPD to grow and take voters who like the platform QS espoused but are a little hesitant to support a sovereigntist party? Who knows?

Sadly, much as I like Manon and am heartened by her broad appeal, sometimes she does get caught up by hard interviewers; she should simply refuse to respond to such goads. But I wouldn't dare stand for office, so I'm not saying that to dismiss her in any way.

It is a false problem as if the CACA comes first, they'll instantly rip up any commitment to PR.

Lots of left sovereignists vote NDP federally. Don't really see why left federalists have problems with doing the opposite, when the issue is really not on the agenda now. There is a big overlap among volunteers for GND and Boulerice...

Fortunately, the Liberals don't have a chance in hell of winning in Mercier.

With issues like the hijab arising how is the NDP's intercultural integration model that is based on solidarity and harmonious exchanges among individuals of differing cultures being received by Quebec voters? I presume that given that it was Quebec activists who inserted this into the NDP constitution as a core belief they are using it in this campaign.

pietro_bcc wrote:

And indeed Legault is correct, the other 3 parties with representation in the national assembly agree that she shouldn't be allowed to wear a hijab and be a cop, while the Liberals believe she should be allowed. Based on this issue I decided to hold my nose and vote Liberal.

Only one party is committed to this platform. Based on that I decided to hold my nose and vote Québec Solidaire. Oh yeah, they moved to remove the crucifix from the National Assembly, but no other sitting party supported that motion. Is that better or worse than cops wearing hijabs? Life is so full of contradictions.

Unionist wrote:

pietro_bcc wrote:

And indeed Legault is correct, the other 3 parties with representation in the national assembly agree that she shouldn't be allowed to wear a hijab and be a cop, while the Liberals believe she should be allowed. Based on this issue I decided to hold my nose and vote Liberal.

Only one party is committed to this platform. Based on that I decided to hold my nose and vote Québec Solidaire. Oh yeah, they moved to remove the crucifix from the National Assembly, but no other sitting party supported that motion. Is that better or worse than cops wearing hijabs? Life is so full of contradictions.

Both restricting those who wear a hijab from certain jobs and hanging a crucifix in the national assembly are wrong. But only one of the two has a tangible effect on the lives of individuals, so for that reason I'd say restricting people who wear a hijab from having certain jobs is a lot worse.

Quote:

Nobody here likes it that Doug Ford is in power, but there's nothing the ONDP could have done to prevent that.  Wynne, however, might have been able to prevent it had she told HER supporters, in her early concession speech, that what mattered was beating the PC's in NDP-PC marginals.  She refused to do that-instead, she perpetrated the lie that the PC's and the NDP were somehow equally evil.

No matter how "doomed" a party might seem going into an election, that party's Leader has only one job:  continue to support his/her party and their candidates.

It's not a Leader's job, from their deathbed, to try to convince supporters to support another party, nor to try to convince them to NOT support another party.  I literally get to live with Ford for the next 3 and change years, and I'm not particularly thrilled about that, but it's not Wynne's fault.  It was the NDP's job to convince voters -- disenchanted Liberal supporters or otherwise -- to choose the NDP, not hers.

Quote:

and Horwath had no GREATER obligation to demand that her supporters "vote strategically" than Wynne did, since there were no significant number of ridings where "strategic" NDP votes for the OLP candidate would ever have defeated the PC candidate-there weren't any large quantity of races where the Liberal candate would have scraped through if only the ONDP voters had "known their place" and voted OLP.

I totally agree!  Her job is to say "vote NDP" or else to resign if she no longer supports her own candidates.  It's never to say "vote Liberal to stop some other party!" nor "do not vote for that other party!"

If the Liberals are defeated which is likely I think they will probably have another 12 year reign after CAQ destroys Quebec finances. Then the Liberals can choose austerity again. 

The CAQ will still have a minority government so they could fall before doing too much damage. Hopefully once they are fully unmasked they will no longer be a threat. The Liberals will again reign for years until another party rises to contest them. 

That will not be QS. No party that even hints at an openess to partition Quebec has a hope in hell of winning power under PR or otherwise. That is the aspect her opponents should have focused on. No doubt QSs rising profile will lead to much greater focus on their problematic policies. as it has for CAQ.

All  that green represents part of the land claimed by FN in Quebec. That's a huge part of Quebec. Everyone knows once that can of worm is opened Montreal will want self-determination which cannot happen. There are other areas of Quebec that would want self-determination. That's why the PQ always took a hardline on Quebec borders simply declaring them immovable and talk of partition scare-monguering. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrador#Boundary_dispute

Quebec still hasn't recognized the border between us and Labrador. There is no way Quebecers will accept another threat to our borders. Any hint that independence would mean giving up land will lead to rejection. 

We all live in provinces. Even if you would be willing to have your province partitioned in exchange for independence from Canada would the majority of the people of your province vote for it? 

I am not saying this because I am against QS or I don't want them to win. This is how I perceive the political landscape in Quebec. There are deal-breakers that completely rule out a party. For example any party that ran on repealing Bill 101 would never get a single seat no matter what their other policies. It's a red line. So are Quebec borders to  the majority of Quebecers.

QS cannot have a breakthrough in the regions even if their popularity is rising. As soon as they catch wind of QS policy on partition their support will tank. 

I hope that the NDPQ rises no matter at whose expense it is including the Liberals. They could still replace CAQ as the next alternative to the Liberals if CAQs popularity fails as the PQs has. If not I fear the Liberals will have a stranglehold on power for another 12 years. Given who CAQ has wooed QS can't steal much more support from them. Some of those votes will go back to the PQ. 

Manon Masse is  not some random member of QS. She is their official spokesperson. She is willing to support CAQ to stick it to the Liberals because CAQ supports PR. It doesn't matter to me whether or not the CAQ would betray QS and not support it. The point is QS priorizes PR and independence over short term well-being of Quebecers. 

It looks like they will have great success on Monday and so will be all excited and triumphant but even with 8 seats they won't have any real power. It won't be enough seats to give CAQ a majority. The issue is not that they might win someday it is that they will never win as long as they are devoted to independence as the only path to social justice. 

If they are never going to win or even have an impact on Quebec policy I don't see any point in supporting them.

My riding will go to QS. I prefer the local Liberal candidate over the NDPQ candidate but I've decided to vote NDPQ. Even if it takes them 10 years to grow any kind of presence at least with them there is some small chance that the Liberals will not reign forever with short breaks every 10 to 15 years. They really don't have to worry about this election. They were probably resigned to losing it. They'll just win the next one. 

Independence  is not an issue for this election because both lead parties are "federalist" not because people don't care about it anymore. Any separatist party that rises will ultimately lose to the Liberals. Promising to backburner the issue led to many PQ wins but as soon as people had an alternative in CAQ they switched in large numbers especially since CAQ appears to represent the most imporant motivation for independence from Canada. The preservation of traditional Quebecois culture not just language. 

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Make no mistake. If I lived in Quebec, I would be perfectly fine voting QS in a general election and voting "non" in a sovereignty referendum. Apparently there are other federalists who agree. 

I'm not a "federalist" - because how nations and peoples configure their sovereign arrangements (separate, federated, something different) is not an article of fundamental faith for me. As long as self-determination is recognized and respected, the rest is up to the players.

But I voted "non" in the latest referendum, and would vote "non" if one were held under current conditions - yet I definitely belong to and vote for QS. No contradiction there.

So welcome to Québec, bro! I like the way you'll vote.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So welcome to Québec, bro! I like the way you'll vote.

Merci Unionist! Alors, c'est vrai que Québec a un systeme de garderie qui est si bon comme le Manitoba, alors c'est peut-etre un bonne raison de demenager au Québec!

Hein, t'es bon en français, toi!

Re child care:

Winnipeg is pretty economical: Monthly median fees of $651 in 2017, compared to $1,758 in Toronto.

Montréal led the pack, however, at $168.

Source: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

So what are you waiting for? Come on down!!

..i wish i had a qs like option. they represent a change from politics as usual where capital dominates. dominating capital is what really threatens que..not sovereignty. imho. i wish them well on election day.