quebec election - 04.09.2012

DaveW wrote:

CAQ is basically poaching on Liberal demographics -- middle class, right of centre, anti-PQ -- and in the many three-way races across the province on Sept 4, the CAQ's new votes will largely be taken from the Liberals and help put the PQ over the top.

Hence the PQ could have a lopsided majority with only a modest , 30-something share of the popular vote. Let's hope not, but the math seems clear in a first-past-the-post electoral system with 3 major parties.

The difference in Quebec is that CAQ is starting to be firmly established as the second party among francophones...and if the trend of francophone Liberals shifting to CAQ continues - there will be a tipping point where CAQ starts winning a lot of marginal seats that would otherwise go PQ.

They're not sliding back: Léger has them at 27% in the poll they released today, a 6-point gain from their last poll (August 1st).

Stockholm wrote:

I'm amazed that ONLY 49% of Quebecers say they would be in favour of "having their cake and eating it too". Why isn't it 100%??

Maybe they just don't like cake?

Seriously, though...is it really necessary or useful to bother being snarky about this anymore?  Sovereigntists are hardly the greatest threat Canada faces these days.

lagatta, my point was that the "French" approach to this question which you were alluding to (which, from what I gather, includes a healthy dose of Islamophobia) can not really be categorized as just another "frame" for anti-racism.

a "second", breakout stage for CAQ would involve them clearly passing the Liberals poll numbers in the late August half of the campaign, and presenting francophones with 2 clear major alternatives to the present Govt., and not just one:

given the relative unpopularity of Pauline Marois, esp. vs Legault, and the decision of Quebec voters to "change govt." anything could still happen Sept. 4th ...

Leger shows one voter decision has been made: Charest will not be returned even as a minority leader, and at just 19% francophone support, not even as a junior coalition partner ... bye bye

Anglos looking elsewhere, to some degree:

Les libéraux reculent aussi auprès des anglophones et des allophones, des votes concentrés sur l’île de Montréal qui leur sont acquis depuis toujours. En une semaine, l’appui des allophones aux libéraux a fondu de 81% à 62% tandis que celui de la CAQ est passé de 9% à 20%. «La majorité des anglophones et des allophones sont insatisfaits du gouvernement sauf qu’ils ne savent pas où aller», observe Jean-Marc-Léger.

 Macpherson agrees more flux likely:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/Macpherson+Jean+Charest+time/7107458/story.html

 Results of two polls by different firms using different methods published on Thursday and Friday show the same general pattern: the PQ with enough support to form a majority government; the Liberals facing their worst defeat since 1976; and the CAQ showing signs of gathering momentum.

But the PQ may have peaked too soon in the campaign. There is time for it to become the main target of the other parties, for the election of a PQ government to become an issue itself, and for anti-PQ voters to rally behind either the Liberals or the CAQ.

genstrike, perhaps we should be discussing social movements in France elsewhere. I was referring to antiracist campaigners in France, obviously not "Islamophobes", though some certainly have a suspicion of all religion, starting with Catholicism.

Islamophobia is a very ambiguous term - it can be a way of tarring people (including of Maghrebi descent) who are suspicious of organized religions as "racist". Or, more properly, refer to nasty amalgams between people of Muslim faith or origins (whether religious or not) with extremism and terrorism.

We have seen the latter right here with nasty web/whisper campaigns against Amir Khadir and Djamila Benhabib. Amir is from a secular, left intellectual Iranian family, is secular, never mentions religion. Benhabib strays into what could properly be seen as Islamophobia (the amalgams) herself, but of course the redneck major of Saguenay insinuated that "Algerians" and their ilk were forcing Québec to divest itself of old religious symbols, when of course this has been an ongoing fight waged by secular QuébécoisEs of "pure-laine" origin.

Si is the main debate tomorrow, Sunday evening? And what time does it start?

And how can TVA just drop a party who has elected representatives from their debates?

Well, if it's a minority, that minority might have to rely on a smaller party's support, so it would make sense for the audience to see their views as well.

CBC had excellent translation. I watched the full two hours. No knockout blows although Charest was pretty aggressive. Francoise David (QS) was ok but where was Amir Khadr?

We're going to be governed by Pauline Marois most likely after September 4 - God help us. I'd say the same about Legault and that weasel Charest.

Legault was by far the scariest of these for me. I'd almost consider moving if he becomes Premier.

Québec solidaire's leadership chose to have David do the debate. One party couldn't have two spokespersons in such a debate.

Charest was very aggressive but also sounded cornered. He did make a good point about the stupid forced retirement of nurses (and doctors, though I had heard a lot more about nurses, and doctors can always go into private practice).

But the problem he has is that so many people now think he is a crook, not just guilty of misjudgement.

I think Françoise David was fantastic. (And this is coming from someone who was somewhat uncertain about her ability to shine through in such a format.)

Of course, you might say I'm biased, but: 1) praise of her performance was widespread on Twitter; 2) most analysts (Chantal Hébert, Vincent Marissal, etc.) seemed to agree that she provided the best performance of all participants.

Françoise David was amazing. Besides speaking from a deep position of principle, she was capable, diplomatic, respectful... while the two men engaged in their dogfights. She agreed with Pauline Marois when it was appropriate to do so, and Marois returned the favour. And she spoke openly and courageously about Quebecers need for their country, for their independence - about QS's siding with the 99% - about the need for social, economic, and political progress. Whether you agree with her stand on independence or not, she was clear and unabashed. I thought throughout about the triumphalist "advice" to Quebecers in the other thread (the one where we are lectured that QS is dead and we "need" the NDP!!!). I am so proud of Françoise.

It's a shame QS is being purposely excluded from the rest of the debates.

It was good strategy to have Françoise David in the debate, particularly so there would not be 3 men against 1 woman, and Amir is doing great representing QS on RDI. 

The best thing that could happen now would be a minority government with QS holding the balance of power.

Let's just hope that happens.

Unionist wrote:

Was that the advice you gave progressives about the federal NDP in Québec before May 2011? [b]"Look elsewhere?"[/b] Dump the losers?? How well did that work out?

If I had seen the Orange Wave coming, I would have jumped on it. Don't forget in the previous couple of elections I had campaigned here for Pierre Ducasse. He wasn't here last year.

Oops - thanks for correcting my spelling, lagatta. I'll go back and correct my post.

I think everyone knew ahead of time what to expect from Legault, Marois and Charest, because we're so used to these three. Ms. David is new to me and the only one, clearly, with a commitment to social issues and the environment. I wanted to see Khadir, though, as he's the elected member - right?

And if anyone had any questions as to where QS stands on sovereignty, Ms. David made it clear it's a priority for them.

Yes, lagatta, Françoise was the only participant to score high on environment issues last night. Lest we forget, all of the other debate participants last night favour environmental rape of Quebec's north, where I live.

ps:  does anyone on babble live further north in Quebec than I do? Just asking.

I just remembered there's a post above that shows  support for sovereignty is 49%. After the debate last night where both David and Marois emphasized that sovereignty is a priority for each of their parties, I wonder if that number will go up?

Contrariwise, Legault and Charest each could benefit from 'sovereignty fatigue' if such a malaise actually exists. Personally, I think the government of Stephen Harper is driving up support for an independent Quebec.

And this is likely the Achilles Heel for the NDP - Mulcair is a strict federalist. If Harper is driving up support for our independence, Mulcair could find himself on the wrong side of history here. Here's Mulcair in a  CBC article:

"My track record is clear — people know that I'm a strong federalist. I fought the 1980 referendum, but I also fought in the 1995 referendum. Quebec City is a very tough neighbourhood to practise politics when you are a federalist, but I stood up for Canada and I'll continue to do that," he said. "That'll always be my vision."

Right after that statement, CBC puts this in:

The NDP believes a simple majority, 50 per cent plus one vote, is enough to decide a future Quebec referendum.

I can't help but wonder if Mulcair feels some discomfort with the official NDP policy here.

 Even Justin Trudeau said something about not wanting to live in Harper's Canada.

Charest was defensive (naturally), arrogant, loud-mouthed, aggressive, and smirked throughout the whole evening. That's a winner????

Unionist wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 I thought throughout about the triumphalist "advice" to Quebecers in the other thread (the one where we are lectured that QS is dead and we "need" the NDP!!!).

 

For me, it's best summed up by another poster who suggested if QS continues to elect just one or two seats, then maybe it's time for progressives to look elsewhere.

Was that the advice you gave progressives about the federal NDP in Québec before May 2011? [b]"Look elsewhere?"[/b] Dump the losers?? How well did that work out?

I voted NDP in three consecutive federal elections, even though they won in only one riding - my own, as it happened. I didn't give up on them. Mulcair now is calling on Quebecers to stop wasting their time on QS and wait for him to form a provincial party - one which will be "federalist".

Why doesn't he just call upon all Quebecers to support Québec solidaire, while retaining whatever belief they have about sovereignty? That's what I do. What does Mulcair expect Quebecers to do in this election? Whom should they vote for? Sit at home?

Mulcair should keep his nose out of Québec politics. He stopped his entire caucus from uttering one word of support for the students. I think he has forfeited the right to tell us that we need to have a federalist party ruling in Québec City.

Agreed.  Asking QS supporters and others to switch to a proposed Quebec NDP, a party that would always be bland and passionless on social justice and workers' rights issues compared to QS, and which has proved that it would always avoid real struggles for change and justice by refusing to back the Quebec students(there will never be another issue in Quebec that will matter MORE than taht one for left people) is asking them to give up.

A Quebec NDP government that was just like the Manitoba and Nova Scotia NDP governments could never be worth having at all.  It would actually be worse than having what Quebec has now to have that.  And realisticallyk, that's what forming a Quebec national branch of the NDP would mean, folks.  It would mean surrender and the acceptance of bland Prairie normalcy.

You don't see Mulcair's reactionary insistence that Quebec NDP MP's not back the students as a horrible sign?

Really, if they party stays out of that fight, they won't really be able to join any other struggles later.

And it doesn't even make sense if he's trying to take over from the PLQ.  It's only the more right-wing PLQ types that are actually insisting on the tuition increase and the suppression of protest.  Nobody who still ties themselves to the "Quiet Revolution" era of Quebec Liberalism would be adamant about making the students pay more.

QS is a party of human solidarity.  Is there any reason to think a Quebec NDP would be anything like that?  Wouldn't it put the "winning the election is all that matters" meme before any real commitment to change?

Ken Burch wrote:

You don't see Mulcair's reactionary insistence that Quebec NDP MP's not back the students as a horrible sign?

Really, if they party stays out of that fight, they won't really be able to join any other struggles later.

And it doesn't even make sense if he's trying to take over from the PLQ.  It's only the more right-wing PLQ types that are actually insisting on the tuition increase and the suppression of protest.  Nobody who still ties themselves to the "Quiet Revolution" era of Quebec Liberalism would be adamant about making the students pay more.

QS is a party of human solidarity.  Is there any reason to think a Quebec NDP would be anything like that?  Wouldn't it put the "winning the election is all that matters" meme before any real commitment to change?

Your thinking is flawed in so many ways. One it wouldn't be lead by someone from the Praire's, it would be lead by a Quebecer, most likely French, and into a different political field with its own history and with that would come a very different flavour of NDP. One can already see the growing positive influence of Quebecers on the Federal NDP.

Secondly the MPs weren't allowed to take sides in any major way because its provincial justistiction, this obviously would not be an issue for the Quebec NDP who as a Provincial Party could take a stand without violating turf. In fact the awkward position the NDP found themselves in maybe one of the reasons the NDP has decided to do this.

As for QS having better policies, one you don't know what policies the the NDP will have, and two QS targets only a narrow niche and so can pick all the favoured policies of that narrow niche, the price for that being no real electoral future, no chance at government, and no positive change.

And no I'm not advictating victory at any cost, but appealing to and learning about the wants and needs of a greater volume of people.

Plus I hate the cospokesman thing they got going, pick one.

.

Exciting days ahead, no doubt. And a long period of waiting - just as on the federal scene we anxiously await 2015.