quebec election - 04.09.2012

Not a very good day for the Premier! 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections/quebec-liberal-fundraiser-calls-on-party-faithful-to-vote-for-caq/article4491956/

Looks like having Francoise David in the leader's debate is paying off.

http://www.journalderosemont.com/Elections/2012-08-21/article-3057641/Francoise-David-se-distingue-au-debat-des-chefs/1

"What does Québec want?" Free beer, for starters.

Brachina wrote:

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.

What's the problem with the co-spokesperson thing?  It's not like they could still be radical with a bland, focus-group controlled single leader(who. let's face it, would have to end up being a white guy since that's what other parties USUALLY have) who laid down "the line" from above(I assume you're also against the policy-from-below aspects of QS) like Mulcair does on foreign policy?

And who are QS leaving out?  It's not like what they fight for wouldn't help all working-class Quebecers.  Do they need to go into drearie, conformist platitudes about "the middle class"(a formulation which always means distance from workers, immigrants and the poor)?  You seem to assume that "learning about the wants and needs of a greater volume of people" automatically means blanding out the program, accepting middle-class norms(an acceptance that by itself means giving up on working for real change)and being "like the other parties".

The problem is, having a party that looks and acts like the other parties would inevitably mean having a party that AGREES with the other parties and ends up surrendering to the neoliberal, insular, conformist consensus-a party that is "safe" and "reassuring".  How is that useful?  And how can being "normal" and "mainstream" produce change at all?  A Quebec left party led by yet ANOTHER smooth middle-aged white guy in Armani really couldn't be worth having.  That wouldn't be a party that would bother trying to change life at all.

Quebec Debate May Result In Gains For Québec Solidaire At Expense Of PQ

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/21/quebec-debate-election-2012_n_1818050.html

But while these three leaders were attacking one another, arguing and criticizing their respective records (both Marois and Legault were ministers when the Parti Québécois was last in power), David spoke primarily when it was her turn and was the target of few pointed questions by the other leaders. Along with being as articulate as the others, this allowed her to present herself and her party's positions calmly and without interruption. It is difficult to argue that she 'won' the debate, but she certainly did not lose anything.

Her solid performance is a positive development for both Legault and Charest, whose parties are very unlikely to share much in common with the electorate that Québec Solidaire targets. If David boosts her party's support, much of it is likely to come from the PQ. With the three TVA debates not including David, there is little reason to believe Québec Solidaire will make massive gains in the last two weeks of the campaign. But if the party captures a couple of points from the PQ, it could cost the party a couple of seats. And that could cost Marois a majority government.

The one seat that Québec Solidaire might be able to take from the PQ as a direct result of the debate is Gouin, where David is running against PQ MNA Nicolas Girard. Her closing comments at the end of the debate made that clear, as she asked viewers to select her (not her party in general) as their representative in the National Assembly. That David was present at the debate instead of Khadir, who is likely to be re-elected in his riding, was no accident. Will the gambit pay off?

- from the comment section

David and Khadir are co-spokespeople, not co-leaders. Why is that so hard to get? The leader, as registered with the DGEQ, is Réjean Séguin, and he's only there because the DGEQ requires you to register a leader. In reality, QS functions with a collective leadership.

I hope whoever becomes Premier has only a minority govt. Dark days ahead.

What do you folks think of a law that says that in a company with 50 or more employees, the language of work [b]must be French[/b] - even if everyone there, owners and workers alike, are anglophones - or Chinese immigrants - or Aboriginal? Would that be a "racist" law?

Unionist wrote:

What do you folks think of a law that says that in a company with 50 or more employees, the language of work [b]must be French[/b] - even if everyone there, owners and workers alike, are anglophones - or Chinese immigrants - or Aboriginal? Would that be a "racist" law?

 

We're talking about a potential bill barring people running from office based on the language they speak.

Barring people from running for office. Barring people from petitioning their own bloody legislature.

And you don't have a problem with this?

And they're off - live streaming here.

http://quebec2012.tvanouvelles.ca/

Hi Rabelais, good to see you around!

I oppose Marois's proposal. It addresses no real problem and panders to backward sentiment.

I'm disappointed at your reply to my question about the language of work. Not one single political party dares to speak against this historic consensus which has now lasted 35 years. It is likely that had your kind of oposition to Bill 101 prevailed, Québec would long since have left this federation.

Francoise David live

https://new.livestream.com/accounts/1168531/events/1058399

Gee, autoworker, I wrote above that I opposed Marois's proposal, and you're cross-examining me for what purpose exactly?

I think it's sad that both you and Rabelais seem to misunderstand the colossal importance of Bill 101 in our history, especially the right of the vast majority of Quebecers to work in their own language. My questions above were simply aimed at determining the starting point of those non-Quebecers who were expressing such haughty indignation about Marois's proposal (or rather, what little they know about it from the Toronto MSM).

I got my answer.

Marois is a racist.

this Leger poll is astounding, as regards Decided voters:

http://www.legermarketing.com/admin/upload/publi_pdf/Provincial_Voting_I...

Unionist wrote:

Hi Rabelais, good to see you around! I oppose Marois's proposal. It addresses no real problem and panders to backward sentiment. I'm disappointed at your reply to my question about the language of work. Not one single political party dares to speak against this historic consensus which has now lasted 35 years. It is likely that had your kind of oposition to Bill 101 prevailed, Québec would long since have left this federation.

"It addresses no real problem and panders to backward sentiment." - I totally agree, and thanks for posting that, Unionist.

Excellent post, Ken B!

With the rave reviews that Ms. David is getting, dare we hope QS will score more seats than expected  - just like last year's Orange Wave drove Quebec voters to the NDP!

Much appreciated - so did CBC make a misteak in their translation???

Ken Burch wrote:

I think Marois' proposal gives QS a chance to peel off anti-racist, anti-oppression voters from the PQ.  It gives David and Khadir a chance to argue that the PQ is a party that holds a bigoted and insular image of Quebec's future, a vision that doesn't really include allophones/non-francophone immigrants, FN's OR Innu/Inuit.

It's a way to finish the campaign by reminding the voters of how inclusive and positive the QS approach is compared to the PQ.

The fact that they're up to 9% suggests that the peeling-off is happening.

Boom Boom wrote:

adma wrote:

The fact that they're up to 9% suggests that the peeling-off is happening.

Good news. I hope it continues.

Absolutely. Marois in her resentment-marketing reminds me of Marine Le Pen sometimes.  I would love to see her flop on Sept. 4th...

problem is, what is the best way, as a voter in Westmount-St Louis, to facilitate that??

Move?

What a pity the district is thus. St-Louis, once upon a time, elected a Communist. I've lived there too, decades ago, but I don't think we were in the same riding as Westmount, which is another world.

I don't think Marois is a Le Pen clone - in terms of France, she reminds me of some old Communist mayors who took reactionary steps to restrict immigrant workers (and French workers of North and West African origins) from living or voting in their constituencies. But indeed, and alas, some of the Le Pen electorate comes from such districts.

Also remember that Québec, a historically-oppressed nation (though in the Global North, like Scotland or Catalonia) is in a very different situation from France, which remains a significant imperialist power.

The repercussions continue: Marois statement angers aboriginals

- Marois backtracked on Wednesday, saying the proposed law would only apply to “new arrivals” in Quebec. But for some aboriginal leaders, the retraction was too little, too late.

-

The language mishap may have been unintentional on Marois’s part, but it marked the first time First Nations issues have been front and centre in a campaign dominated by corruption allegations, economic issues and the question of Quebec nationalism. For Quebec Solidaire candidate Sylvain Cloutier, the incident is a reminder of how the province’s aboriginals have been taken for granted during the elections.

“It’s really quite sad that we don’t have more meaningful discussions about these issues,” Cloutier said. “These are citizens of this province and we kind of just leave them out of the equation. We take (aboriginal) resources without much consultation, we impose our laws, our practices, our languages on them.”

Cloutier was a doctor in northern communities for the past 10 years and says he rarely spoke to his patients in French. He’s running in the Ungava conscription -- a sprawling territory that encompasses almost every Cree, Inuit and Innu settlement in Quebec.

“These are territories that almost exclusively speak Cree, Inuktitut and English,” Cloutier said. “It’s important for those communities to decide the language they want to learn, the language they want to speak at work. I agree that if they run for office they should learn some French, but it’s a two-way street.”

ETA:  However, the more stringent requirements for new Quebecers would not apply to first-nations people, nor to anglophones and allophones already living in the province, she (Marois) specified.

Dave, that is fascinating. I remember Rosedale/Cabbagetown!!!

I want to make it clear that I think her approach is ill-advised, dangerous and demagogic - it is just that comparing her to the leader of a slightly relooked neofascist party did bother me, for as you know, there are some anglos who are quick to cry fascist or even Nazi ("tongue-troopers") at the Québécois people's most legitimate demands.

I've been off-and-on in France, and in Italy, for years too and seen that sorry process.

Think David Fennario stood for election in either Westmount/Saint-Henri or Westmount/Saint-Louis. Saint-Louis used to be very poor too, but along the Main, very multi-culti. Now quite a bit of it is somewhat gentrified (like Mercier), but in Saint-Louis and Mercier, there is still a lot of poverty.

I don't see any more progressive party getting a seat there, alas. No point in strategic voting. Of course I'm QS, but in your case, really vote for the progressive party you feel closest to, whether QS, Greens, UCC (? - sorry, forget the correct initials - perhaps UCQ?, or even ON, though I doubt that would be your choice if you find PQ too hardline on Francisation of Cégeps, citizenship and small businesses.

QS would agree with you on the Cégeps and citizenship/eligibility, but not entirely on small businesses. I certainly agree in terms of very small family businesses, who are usually working in their own native language (mine runs in a strange combination of French, English, Italian, Spanish, bit of German and above all Cat), but there are a lot of French-speakers who are bullied into speaking English in such small firms (11 to 50 employees). Many of these French speakers are not native Francophones but French-speaking immigrants from the Maghreb, the Levant, West Africa and the French-speaking Caribbean (Haiti and to a lesser extent French Départements). These people are selected on the basis of their academic and professional qualifications and their (excellent) fluency in French, and then find themselves facing job discrimination if they are not also fluent in English.

curiously, I might side with Marois on the PME/small-business francization proposal, as work is a key vector for language acculturation; many textile and other small plants in central Montreal are staffed by immigrants and basically run in English...

poll time:

http://www.threehundredeight.com/

The projection has swung hard because of this poll, with the Liberals up 4.3 points to 34.2% and the Parti Québécois down 3.5 points to 31.5%. The CAQ, with 23%, is down 1.6 points. Québec Solidaire picked up 1.8 points to hit 7.5%.

With the Liberals now in front in the vote projection, they also move ahead in the seat projection. They picked up 20 seats to surge to 58, five short of a majority, while the PQ dropped 16 seats to 49. The CAQ dropped five seats to 16 and Québec Solidaire increased their share from one to two.