NDP and QS activists worked together to hold on to Boulerice's seat and came close to saving Dusseault and to electing Machouf. Perhaps Dusseault, Brosseau and others can rise again in a broader victory. Is there a bright future to hope for?
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5336302
After the federal election: the dangers and challenges that lie ahead
This article is an English adaptation of Pierre Beaudet’s article “Péril en la demeure” published in the current post-election issue of the on-line journal Presse-toi à gauche. He currently teaches international development at the University of Québec Outaouais campus in Gatineau.
quote:
An initial conclusion: Canada is not fertile ground, at least for now, for the kind of ultra-reactionary wave that we have been seeing in the United States, England, Germany and elsewhere. Notwithstanding many nuances, this is positive.
quote:
Now, allow us to make some forecasts.
quote:
As for the New Democratic Party, the election marks a further step in its long-term stagnation, interrupted in the past only by a few very fleeting advances as in the 2011 “orange wave.” It seems unable to reinvent itself, to offer a credible alternative to the dominant projects of Canadian capital. Although public opinion polling identified climate change as a major concern, the NDP spoke with a forked tongue on some major environmental issues: for example, endorsing the B.C. NDP government’s massive LNG and natural gas pipeline project while opposing a similar project in Québec. After some hesitation Singh came out in opposition to the Liberals’ Trans Mountain bitumen pipeline expansion, but the party was hobbled by the conflict between the B.C. government, which opposed TMX, and its Alberta NDP counterpart which had championed it while in government.
On Québec, the party has ultimately failed to engage with the progressive nationalist consciousness of the Québécois. Its major attempt, the 2006 Sherbrooke Declaration, endorsed Québec’s right to national self-determination but said its national character could be “expressed in the context of the [existing] Canadian federation.” Underlying its ambiguities is the party’s inability to incorporate within its conception of state power the plurinational reality of the Canadian social formation and the ways in which that reality is denied and violated through the constitutional regime established in 1867. Moreover, the NDP (like much of the left) has never understood the role of the federal state as the mainstay of the domination and class interests of Canadian Capital, including its subaltern Québec component.
quote:
A few thoughts, perhaps, on what all this may mean for the Québec left. Throughout the federal campaign Québec solidaire, which as an independentist party does not participate in federal elections, kept silent, even in the face of the explosive debate among the other parties over what to do if anything about the Legault government’s Bill 21. A major reason was the QS leadership’s fear of reigniting the difficult debate in the party over identity and “values” sparked most recently by the CAQ’s Bill 21, a debate that left behind some bitter feelings. The firm and positive position adopted at the QS national council meeting in April did not meet with anything like universal acceptance, even among the party membership.
We agree with the decision taken by a large majority of the council members to oppose Bill 21, on the grounds that the bill’s discrimination against faith communities and genders that identify their personal religious beliefs through various forms of clothing (e.g. the Muslim hijab) is inconsistent with true laïcité or state secularism, which registers state neutrality toward religion. But what the QS debate may not have addressed adequately is the insecurity that continues to plague many Québécois — especially in regions outside the Montréal metropolis where very few if any Muslim women or other ethnic minorities are encountered — over their national culture and language, in short identity, in a continent and a state that are overwhelmingly non-Francophone and predominantly English-speaking.
The CAQ, the Bloc and the PQ have effectively wielded this insecurity to begin forging a new right-wing nationalist alignment in which Bill 21 is a key element, camouflaging its divisive xenophobic content behind opposition to the “multiculturalism” program originally manufactured by Trudeau Senior as a means to reduce Québec’s foundational national identity to just another residual ethnic identity in the Canadian popular consciousness.
Québec solidaire still needs to find ways to address these underlying insecurities by deepening our inclusive and emancipatory project to include a stronger defense of Québécois culture and language. Our project, which is already characterized by its commitment to ecology, feminism and altermondialisme, could benefit from some additional explorations. We cannot be indifferent to the gap between Montréal and the other university towns where QS is strongest, and the rest of the nation in which the working-class and popular majority are likewise seeking a better life, in dignity. The point of departure, as our sympathizers in the regions often remind us, is that our project cannot thrive without the creation of a new political space recognizing French as the common language, and deeply attached to democratic traditions — a true popular sovereignty that comes from the people and is deeply imbued with a sense of social solidarity. A project that is inclusive, democratic, secular (laïc) and popular....
Hey hey, welcome epaulo! I tried to lure you back the other day by reviving a thread started last year by you. It worked!
And thanks for the article by Beaudet (co-authored by Richard Fidler). The full version is well worth reading. More questions than answers, but maybe that's what we need for now.
I don't think that the left wing will rise in Quebec for quite a while. Sadly the strength of Quebec's social conservatism has been shown to be more powerful than the province's fiscal progressivism, judging by this federal election and the last provincial election. The only spots of hope are some of the bigger cities (Montreal, Laval) and Sherbrooke because its a university city, but that is not enough to form a progressive government. The best we can hope for is the Liberals returning to power so at least we'll only have fiscal conservatism and not both fiscal and social conservatism (as is the case with the CAQ.) But even with the Liberals, most of their leadership candidates are saying they want to go in the CAQ's direction in regards to social issues. Basically for the foreseeable future, we're screwed.
Parts of Québec are socially-conservative in some respects, but by no means all. We are certainly leaders in the fight for abortion and contraceptive rights, the student movement, the right to die (along with BC) and many other things. Not to mention the force of the climate justice movement.
As for Laval, it is mostly lethal carcentric suburban sprawl. It would have to get its house in order to be progressive in any sense. The mess there is the result of an utter lack of oversight or planning, as well as corruption and collusion between shifty pols and developers.
I don't think that the left wing will rise in Quebec for quite a while. Sadly the strength of Quebec's social conservatism has been shown to be more powerful than the province's fiscal progressivism, judging by this federal election and the last provincial election. The only spots of hope are some of the bigger cities (Montreal, Laval) and Sherbrooke because its a university city, but that is not enough to form a progressive government. The best we can hope for is the Liberals returning to power so at least we'll only have fiscal conservatism and not both fiscal and social conservatism (as is the case with the CAQ.) But even with the Liberals, most of their leadership candidates are saying they want to go in the CAQ's direction in regards to social issues. Basically for the foreseeable future, we're screwed.
Is it really accurate to describe anti-hijab paranoia as "social conservatism"? Isn't it time to straight out call it xenophobia or perhaps simply bigotry?
"Social conservatism" in Québec? What, who, where? I'm asking both pietro_bcc and lagatta.
"Social conservatism" in Québec? What, who, where? I'm asking both pietro_bcc and lagatta.
By social conservatism I'm refering specifically to issues surrounding identity. As lagatta correctly pointed out in regards to other issues like the right to die, right to education and abortion Quebec is progressive. Should've been more specific in my first post.
I don't think that the left wing will rise in Quebec for quite a while.
Seriously? Are you familiar with Québec solidaire? Can you name another province where a left-wing party can boast 16% of the popular vote in the latest election? No, I'm not talking about the NDP.
QS came within one % of the PQ's vote and the same number of seats. QS went from 3 seats in 2014 to 10 seats today.
And yes, QS opposes Bill 21.
So please explain what you're saying.
I don't think that the left wing will rise in Quebec for quite a while.
Seriously? Are you familiar with Québec solidaire? Can you name another province where a left-wing party can boast 16% of the popular vote in the latest election? No, I'm not talking about the NDP.
QS came within one % of the PQ's vote and the same number of seats. QS went from 3 seats in 2014 to 10 seats today.
And yes, QS opposes Bill 21.
So please explain what you're saying.
I mean, what I said is pretty self evident. The least right wing possible result we can look forward to for the significant future is the Liberal party which is still right wing. QS did well, yes, but where do they have significant room for growth, a couple more Montreal ridings that they narrowly lost, then what?
You have a pretty leftist and progressive society in the means of Montreal. That's where it ends. I think it's too bad the Liberals lost last election to Legault. Iknow what to expect from the Liberals and their platform was half decent going into the election.
It's off the Island of Montreal that is the problem and what keeps us from progressing. Quebec is right wing. Montreal isn't
I'm not going to venture to make a list of every social, economic, and political area where Québec is left of everywhere else in Canada. Maybe just the general areas: labour legislation (anti-scab, card check, many other areas); affordable public child care; first to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation (decades before Ontario, for example); cheapest post-secondary tuition (along with NL), and free public technical/vocational schools (CÉGEP); pharmacare for those who don't have workplace or school plans (better than nothing); public long-term care centres (CHSLD) and community-based health centres (CLSC); spouses must keep their birth names upon marriage since 1981 (a demand of women's organizations); a ban on all advertising targeting kids under 13 years old; an end to religious control of public schools (1998) and to any religious instruction in public schools (2008); and so on. There is no visible opposition to these achievements or to public ownership and spending in such areas, whether on or off the island of Montréal.
When it comes to political parties, Québecers turn on a dime. You probably noticed what they did federally in 2011. They elected the CAQ last year - a party which didn't exist 10 years ago. They made the Bloc the official opposition in Ottawa, only to turn around and reduce it to 2 seats, and now they're half-way back. You're apparently not impressed by QS getting 16% of the vote, but still haven't answered my question about whether a similar party has done such a thing anywhere else in Canada.
And about "left" and "right". Do you think the economic, social, and political platforms of the PQ and the Bloc are "right" - compared, say, to the NDP (either federally or its provincial shadow)? I think all three are right-wing, but I'm just trying to establish what the terminology means. Could Jason Kenney or Doug Ford or Brian Pallister etc. attract a following here based on their economic policies? The parameters and the starting points in Québec are so much different.
Ok, I need to get some soup. Be back later!
PS: At least we're now agreed (I hope) that "socially conservative" isn't an apt descriptor for Québec society.
You'd at least agree, I hope, that there's no reason to vote PLQ in ridings where the caquistes are not in contention. In your riding, for example, the PLQ are always a lock at both the federal and National Assembly level.I don't think that the left wing will rise in Quebec for quite a while.
Seriously? Are you familiar with Québec solidaire? Can you name another province where a left-wing party can boast 16% of the popular vote in the latest election? No, I'm not talking about the NDP.
QS came within one % of the PQ's vote and the same number of seats. QS went from 3 seats in 2014 to 10 seats today.
And yes, QS opposes Bill 21.
So please explain what you're saying.
I mean, what I said is pretty self evident. The least right wing possible result we can look forward to for the significant future is the Liberal party which is still right wing. QS did well, yes, but where do they have significant room for growth, a couple more Montreal ridings that they narrowly lost, then what?
The key to creating a "left" future for Quebec is to break through the false consciousness that the Quebec right has built upon identity and immigration-to create a narrative that persuades working-class Quebecers and, in many cases low-income francophone Quebecers-odd fact, when the Union Nationale had unchallengeable electoral dominance for sixteen years and after Creditistes were at their peak in the early Sixties, they carried the votes of the poorest voters, despite the fact that the Creditistes had virtually no policies designed to eradicate or even reduce poverty. This was because, among those voters in that era, the Creditistes, and before them the Catholic hierarchy, had established in the minds of those people that the great obstacle to justice and dignity in their lives was not capitalism, not corporate greed, not the arrogance of Anglo economic dominance, but...modern life, secularism and religions other than Catholicism, and the possible arrival of people from other parts of the world.
In a bizarre way, the form of secularism Quebec has embraced has become a new false consciousness, at times, been just as inflexible and anti-pluralist as the Catholic supremacism of Quebec's past. It is not a secularism that says "live and let live", that says "all are welcome, no matter what their creed or their lack of creed". Instead, it says "we're officially keeping the state free of all faith traditions-but we're also for officially treating some faith traditions as less acceptable and less socially legitimate than others. And we're going to push the idea that treating some faith traditions and some ethnicities as less welcome and legitimate than others matters far more than workers' rights, economic justice, the eradication of poverty and climate justice".
From my perspective, this set of toxic ideas is the new false consciousness that needs to be broken through and broken down in rural and suburban Quebec if there is to be any hope for a left breakthrough there.
..more from post #2. possibly a way forward.
quote:
We can take inspiration from Scotland, where the rising movement for independence is strongly supported by the people referred to as “immigrants” even if they have lived there for two or three generations. And why is that? Because a new left in recent years has redefined the project as a call to transform the society, to break from the neoliberal prison of the British state, and to promote the interests of the great majority of Scots in their diversity and their utopias.
And there is another task awaiting us, one that is equally monumental. We cannot change Quebec without changing Canada. We must at all costs avoid the terrible error of the right-wing Catalan independentism, which from the outset ruled out the forging of an alliance or at least closer links with the left in the Spanish state. Yes, we know this is not Spain and there is no Podemos or anything resembling it west of the Ottawa River. The Canadian left, such as it is, will some day have to make its own “revolution in the revolution,” incorporating in its program, among other things, a plurinational conception of the Canadian social formation.
A byelection has been called in the riding of Jean-Talon. With both the PQ and the Liberals in disarray, it presents an opportunity for QS and the NDPQ to both make strides forward at the expense of their establishment adversary— toward the day when the two dominant parties in Quebec are: an orange party for sovereignty and another orange party for federalism.
All the NDPQ (as opposed to the NDP within Québec) is doing is trying to impede QS from making a breakthrough. I saw their silly signs about "reasonable change" at the very sites of tahe carré rouge marches. Lots of us campaign for left NDP candidates and scrupulously-neutral on national question Projet Montréal. Too bad that bloody hypocrite Guilbeault beat Machouf.
..in my opinion qs is built for this work. the ndpq, on the other hand, would be an albatross. they just aren't radical enough and never will be.
drift...
The World Up in Arms Against Austerity and Authoritarianism
Much of the world at this moment is a laboratory searching for the cure for capitalism, and the social scientists running the experiments are in the streets.
Around the world, people are rising up in arms, on nearly every continent and in more than a dozen nations. In the last six months there have been rebellions in France, Catalunya, Puerto Rico, Hong Kong, Lebanon, Chile, Ecuador, Honduras, Haiti, Iraq, Sudan and Algeria. These rebellions have in general had a popular and left leaning character and they are angry, militant, and defiant. The common feature is these are rebellions of the lower middle class, the working class and the poor. These various movements have everywhere overflown the banks of the political system. The waves of protest beat against the foundation of the state. The activists in the street everywhere call into question the system, whatever that system where they live is called. When the governments have attempted to crush these movements, the people fight back, refusing to give up the streets. What lies behind these rebellions, what has caused them, and where are they going?
The political situation in each of these countries varies tremendously and the detonating events were quite different: from an objectionable new law to a stolen election, from decades-old dictatorships that have become unbearable to increases in public transit fares. In Lebanon it was the imposition of a tax on Whatsapp telephone calls. In Ecuador the government’s decision allowed an increase in the price of gasoline. In Chile an increase in the metro fare. In Honduras it was the discovery that the president aided his brother who led a drug cartel. In Puerto Rico it was a corrupt and misogynist president. In Hong Kong the promulgation of a law that infringed on local autonomy. In Catalunya in the State of Spain, the meting out of long sentences to Catalan nationalist protestors. In Iraq the people have risen up against unemployment, corruption, and an unresponsive government. In Algeria and Sudan, the populations’ weariness with longstanding authoritarian governments. In Nicaragua, a social security pension reform. In Haiti too protests against a corrupt and authoritarian president.
Everywhere, there was a different trigger. Yet the central issue everywhere is the desire to be treated with dignity and respect.
There are common elements among these rebellions: economic inequality, the imposition of austerity, and governmental abuse of their power. The feeling is, they don’t care about us. In many of these countries the state has lost its legitimacy and the citizenry no longer has confidence in the historic political parties, but generally speaking there is no political party in a position to put forward an alternative political agenda or a new leadership. Yet the revolts have shaken the powers-that-be in each country and sent powerful shockwaves through the international political order. We seem to be in a period of synchronized though uncoordinated political revolts demanding democracy and a better life.
...end drift.
I find Beaudet's analysis of the situation to be tedious. He's done this before where he essentially implies that all of Quebec's problems will be solved if they just separate from Canada and then they will be free to do their own lefty thing. Unfortunately, if you look at election results, every election since 2003 returned a majority of federalist MNAs, despite the unpopularity of the policies of the federalist Liberals during much of that time. The number of sovereigntist MNAs elected last time is the lowest ever since sovereignty became an issue, so it appears that sovereignty is not an issue that you can win on in Quebec. Even QS, I can remember watching the election night speech. That speech got cheers and applause from the crowd gathered whenever left wing public policy goals were announced, but dead silence when the promise was made to fight for a sovereign Quebec. It's one thing to vote for QS to send a message to get more progressive policies when they have a small number of seats. If they ever approach a point when they can feasibly win an election, the isse of sovereignty is going to be a big thing holding them back. (This will be the opening that the NDP Quebec can use to their advantage when the time comes. Until then, they will remain stuck where they are.) Never mind that even an independent Quebec state can also be a tool of neoliberalism. Looking across the ocean to Scotland, Scotland voted "no" in its independence referendum and the matter there appears to be settled (at least until Brexit came along). Finally, my other issue with Beaudet's analysis is that he treats "Canada" as if it is some sort of monolith, without regard to the vast differences that exist within regions outside of Quebec.
..there is a much broader analysis going on in that piece than que sovereignty.
..from the piece at #2
Moreover, the NDP (like much of the left) has never understood the role of the federal state as the mainstay of the domination and class interests of Canadian Capital, including its subaltern Québec component.
..this topic alone should have it's own thread and be discussed. i doubt there is an appetite for this on babble.
..this is at the heart of our multiple crisis. both here in canada, que and the globe. the ndp shies away from saying the word capitalism let alone oppose it.
..while the ndp is the lesser of the evils and i will continue to vote for them (execpt in que i would vote qs). on the question of solutions/alternatives/change the ndp are like bringing tinker toys to a monster truck rally. imho.
The key to creating a "left" future for Quebec is to break through the false consciousness that the Quebec right has built upon identity and immigration-to create a narrative that persuades working-class Quebecers and, in many cases low-income francophone Quebecers-odd fact, when the Union Nationale had unchallengeable electoral dominance for sixteen years and after Creditistes were at their peak in the early Sixties, they carried the votes of the poorest voters, despite the fact that the Creditistes had virtually no policies designed to eradicate or even reduce poverty. This was because, among those voters in that era, the Creditistes, and before them the Catholic hierarchy, had established in the minds of those people that the great obstacle to justice and dignity in their lives was not capitalism, not corporate greed, not the arrogance of Anglo economic dominance, but...modern life, secularism and religions other than Catholicism, and the possible arrival of people from other parts of the world.
In a bizarre way, the form of secularism Quebec has embraced has become a new false consciousness, at times, been just as inflexible and anti-pluralist as the Catholic supremacism of Quebec's past. It is not a secularism that says "live and let live", that says "all are welcome, no matter what their creed or their lack of creed". Instead, it says "we're officially keeping the state free of all faith traditions-but we're also for officially treating some faith traditions as less acceptable and less socially legitimate than others. And we're going to push the idea that treating some faith traditions and some ethnicities as less welcome and legitimate than others matters far more than workers' rights, economic justice, the eradication of poverty and climate justice".
From my perspective, this set of toxic ideas is the new false consciousness that needs to be broken through and broken down in rural and suburban Quebec if there is to be any hope for a left breakthrough there.
Active secularism not multiculturalism is a French tradition. Quebec is emulating France. Quebec is focused on assimilation not multiculturalism. I feel like I should write "duh" after that.
Politicians have tried to make it about language because we need immigrants for corporations to maximize wealth for the 1% but it was never just about language. It was about having been conquered by the British after conquering the Indians. The first invaders claim that the new invaders conquered them unfairly. I guess the new invaders cheated.
The separatist movement rooted in social justice was then taken over by those focused on gaining power and wealth until QS was formed but I think they too get distracted. QS seems to think that separating from Canada is some sort of necessary step to achieving social justice and maybe long term it is but we are decades away from it being a realistic vehicle nevermind a necessary one.
The provincial government of Quebec has within its power the ability and finances to dramatically improve the lives of the middle class and poor of Quebec. Do that first. When that is done will be time enough to evaluate whether or not we should remain within Canada. After all if Quebecers started living way better on less money we would be an example to the rest of Canada. If the rest of Canada became more progressive we would have less reason to separate wouldn't we?
Separation, or "sovereighty non-association" is a thought exercise mascarading as a political movement. No province can separate from Canada without the consent of indigenous peoples who would themselves demand full independence and 100% control over their land and resources. The original separatist movement treated Quebec borders as sacrosanct. They are not. Canada legally agreed to honor all treaties with First Nations as a condition of independence from Great Britain. That is why they are winning court cases. Their treaties have the power of federal law behind them. Quebec police would love to go in and squash them which is why we needed Canadian miltary to handle the Oka crisis.
QS may be fine with indigenous peoples demanding independence from Quebec but 90% of separatists would be outraged at the thought of Quebec's borders moving one inch. The notion of Montreal independence is laughable to sovereignists but if it came down to actual separation there would certainly be a lot of support for it.
That's why there has been a movement towards nationalism and incremental sovereignty which would become defacto separation.
Scheer promised to go along with Legault's desire for a single income tax return administered by Quebec. That he thought this could in any way make up for shoving an "energy corridor" through Quebec shows that western Canada is living in a bubble.
The problem with the left in Quebec is that they equate achieving social justice with achieving independence from Canada when in reality independence would likely herald a new more painful poverty in Quebec with millions unemployed and coffers too bare to pay for social services. There would be a push to exploit natural resources to generate cash using the impoverished as an excuse for the necessity, except a lot of that land would no longer be part of Quebec. The RoC would be in no mood to trade with Quebec. US vultures would be sweeping in.
Canada should get used to the idea we are stuck with each other so we should make the best of it which is pretty damn good.
Pondering, I agree with much of what you worte, but I do take issue with what you said about "Western Canada." Manitoba is not on board with Scheer's energy agenda, and the west coast of BC and Vancouver Island is among the most staunchly anti-pipeline regions in the country outside of Quebec. "Western Canada" makes it sound like it's a big thing, when it's really about right-wing politicians in 2 provinces manipulating an energy and economic crisis for their own political gain.
Pondering, I agree with much of what you worte, but I do take issue with what you said about "Western Canada." Manitoba is not on board with Scheer's energy agenda, and the west coast of BC and Vancouver Island is among the most staunchly anti-pipeline regions in the country outside of Quebec. "Western Canada" makes it sound like it's a big thing, when it's really about right-wing politicians in 2 provinces manipulating an energy and economic crisis for their own political gain.
In my mind Alberta and Saskatchewan are "the West". Manitoba gets thrown in with them but I am not convinced it should be. I think of Manitoba as a long-suffering middle child stuck between loud siblings. BC is the West Coast not "the West". I see BC as being very distinct. I think all the provinces can claim some degree of distinctness although some have a lot of regional similarities. The eastern maritimes share quite abit but not everything. Same goes for Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I think the east uses "the west" as shorthand for oil country not everything west of Ontario. Ontario and Quebec are central Canada not "the east" and yet some Albertans refer to everything east of Manitoba as "the east".
We have such a spectacular country. I hope once the oil issue is settled we will begin to realize our enormous wealth,
..there is a much broader analysis going on in that piece than que sovereignty.
I find his characterization of what happens in the rest of Canada so off-base that I just can't take seriously anything else he has to say.
..from the piece at #2
Moreover, the NDP (like much of the left) has never understood the role of the federal state as the mainstay of the domination and class interests of Canadian Capital, including its subaltern Québec component.
..this topic alone should have it's own thread and be discussed. i doubt there is an appetite for this on babble.
..this is at the heart of our multiple crisis. both here in canada, que and the globe. the ndp shies away from saying the word capitalism let alone oppose it.
..while the ndp is the lesser of the evils and i will continue to vote for them (execpt in que i would vote qs). on the question of solutions/alternatives/change the ndp are like bringing tinker toys to a monster truck rally. imho.
..to bad ari. following that post i posted this and would have liked to hear your thoughts on it.
This news below makes me sad. I thought the re-assurance was made earlier to federalists QS supporters that nothing would happen without a referendum first.
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/quebec-solidaire-promises-acts-of-rupture-to...
It doesn't make me sad it pisses me off. They have forced me to not vote for them.
The 37-year-old Zanetti and the rest of his party might seem fringe to many Canadians, but the party's support has grown in every provincial election since its 2006 creation. While its political platform is radical, and its ranks include anti-capitalists and Marxists, party leaders are politically savvy, strategic, and unafraid to go for the jugular.
The policies adopted over the recent three-day convention on Montreal's south shore revealed a two-pronged strategy to take power in Quebec and sever ties with Canada. First, they become the main choice for sovereigntist Quebecers. Second, they win the youth vote by positioning themselves as the only true political vehicle to combat climate change.
They don't even care about climate change. They are cynically using it under the misguided notion that they can trick people into voting for them. Their support may have been growing since 2006 but they are about to go the way of the PQ. They are on their way to irrelevance. They are doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
The number 1 want of the majority of citizens is to have a government that isn't corrupt, ideological or grandiose. A government genuinely in the service of the people. A government that funds our universities by using their expertise in every area of study to benefit students and society. A party not beholden to members or business but beholden to the people.
If this QS news does not motivate and trigger NDPQ forces to organize and compete ferociously for QS supporters -- then I don't know what will...
The achilles heel for Solidaire in this separatism positioning is across their four held ridings: Jean-Lesage, Laurier-Dorion, Sherbrooke and Rouyn-Noranda-Temiscamingue.
The achilles heel for Solidaire in this separatism positioning is across their four held ridings: Jean-Lesage, Laurier-Dorion, Sherbrooke and Rouyn-Noranda-Temiscamingue.
But it doesn't have to be. There is no need to renounce separatism or play with words. All they have to do is say that during their first mandate they will prove themselves by governing the province better than any other previous government. Only after they have proven that would they ask for a mandate to separate although it could take more than one term for them to prove themselves.
Even less. All they have to do is go back to the position they held before the Option Nationale merger.
By the way, it is independence, not "separatism". And I say that as a QS member not very fond of the congress orientation as I think it should centre on ecosocialism. Just don't think a left discussion forum should be using the language of rightwing anglos (and I don't mean English!) Tonight I'm celebrating the defeat of the odious Mayor Steinberg of Hampstead and the victory not only of tenants of modest means but also urban architecture against that morass of sprawl.
Personally, I think QS has been too affected by the constant claims of the PQ, the Bloc and other identitaire nationalists that we are closet federalists. But while we never know, I'm not terribly worried. Who on earth else can progressive people vote for? The NDPQ has deliberately positioned themselves to our right and will attract pretty much nobody with such a cowardly stance, in the face of climate emergency.
I guess the proper term in English would be the secessionist movement. Canada did not colonize Quebec anymore than it colonized British Columbia or New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, it was a merger of areas that had been colonized by the British previously. Canada most definitely colonized Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Ontario thinks it is Canada so it could not have colonized itself.
I don't know any right-wing Anglos. I think they all took the 401. Sorry about that Toronto. At least we didn't send you the French right wingers.
Quebec is a founding nation of Canada. It can separate anytime it wants to. No one is forcing Quebec to remain. In the first referendum they tried to trick Quebecers into voting for "independence" with the silly sovereignty association crap. Now they use "independent" to imply that Quebec isn't already independent.
Now that QS is fully out of the closet I expect they will lose a lot of support in the next election. That might give the NDPQ some small chance but I am doubtful. Looks to me like we are about to start flipping between the Liberals and CAQ for a decade or more.
double post
I don't know any right-wing Anglos. I think they all took the 401. Sorry about that Toronto. At least we didn't send you the French right wingers.
Strange. I know plenty, and I move in pretty left-wing circles. Ever read the Montreal Gazette? I'm pretty sure it isn't written in Toronto.
I don't know any right-wing Anglos. I think they all took the 401. Sorry about that Toronto. At least we didn't send you the French right wingers.
Strange. I know plenty, and I move in pretty left-wing circles. Ever read the Montreal Gazette? I'm pretty sure it isn't written in Toronto.
No I don't read it. All the anglophones I know are centre left.
But while we never know, I'm not terribly worried. Who on earth else can progressive people vote for?
I have voted Liberal once, QS multiple times, never for other parties.
At the moment, I plan on not voting. I think you will find this is common.
Why? I can't see much reason to vote for a party that is dedicated to Quebec independence ahead of ecosocialism and ecofeminism, that will start the process of independence even before holding a referendum if it wins power.
From what Zanetti and GND say, QS seems to now be such a party. Zanetti is even quoted inviting non-sovereigntists to vote for other parties. I dearly hope that QS returns to a left stance instead of allowing the PQ to drive its agenda, and that ecosocialists like you are able to keep QS internationalist rather than nationalist.
I'm agnostic on sovereignty, like most Quebecois. I can't see any reason to vote for a party whose main raison d'etre is sovereignty. We already have one of those. Climate emergencies can't afford this sort of nationalist posturing.
It's unfortunate that NDPQ could not field a candidate in this byelection. Disaffected PQ and Liberal voters all went to the CAQ and Greens. Solidaire lost ground.
Jean-Talon
Polling stations: 158 / 158
Candidate and affiliation % Votes Leading
Joëlle Boutin
(C.A.Q.-É.F.L.) 43.38 9,950 4,208
Gertrude Bourdon
(P.L.Q./Q.L.P.) 25.03 5,742
Olivier Bolduc
(Q.S.) 16.95 3,888
Sylvain Barrette
(P.Q.) 9.32 2,137
Emilie Coulombe
(P.V.Q./G.P.Q.) 2.79 640
Éric Barnabé
(P.C.Q./C.P.Q.) 1.02 233
Ali Dahan
(Ind) 0.90 206
Stéphane Blais
(C.P.Q.) 0.37 85
Michel Blondin
(P.I.Q.) 0.14 32
Stéphane Pouleur
(É.A.) 0.10 23
But there is utterly no left federalist vote there. It isn't CDN-NDG or even Mile-End.
The Gazoo, the Suburban (is that rag still publishing?) and talk radio, which is usually reactionary whether franco or anglo, at times in somewhat different ways (though they all love big motor vehicles and diss cyclists and pedestrians).
If this QS news does not motivate and trigger NDPQ forces to organize and compete ferociously for QS supporters -- then I don't know what will...
The NDPQ supports law 21, to hell with them they aren't left wing. They're worse than the Quebec Liberals.
I don't know any right-wing Anglos. I think they all took the 401. Sorry about that Toronto. At least we didn't send you the French right wingers.
Strange. I know plenty, and I move in pretty left-wing circles. Ever read the Montreal Gazette? I'm pretty sure it isn't written in Toronto.
Actually much of the Gazette is written in Toronto now, if you actually read the paper most of the political content is just reprinted National Post content. The only parts that are written in Montreal are a few local political stories, a couple of opinion pieces and the sports and culture sections. The bulk of the political content is National Post.
Yes, you are correct about that. They do have a few good local journalists, such as Allison Hayes.
If this QS news does not motivate and trigger NDPQ forces to organize and compete ferociously for QS supporters -- then I don't know what will...
The NDPQ supports law 21, to hell with them they aren't left wing. They're worse than the Quebec Liberals.
I don't know any right-wing Anglos. I think they all took the 401. Sorry about that Toronto. At least we didn't send you the French right wingers.
Strange. I know plenty, and I move in pretty left-wing circles. Ever read the Montreal Gazette? I'm pretty sure it isn't written in Toronto.
Actually much of the Gazette is written in Toronto now, if you actually read the paper most of the political content is just reprinted National Post content. The only parts that are written in Montreal are a few local political stories, a couple of opinion pieces and the sports and culture sections. The bulk of the political content is National Post.
Same with the Edmonton Journal, which, as I mentioned on some other thread, was ordered by the bigwigs in Toronto to endorse the PCs in 2015(when the only other likely victor was the NDP). In contrast to the idea that Alberta's right-wing media slant is a result of its idiosyncratic political culture. (That last point being not entirely false, but there is more complexity to the matter than can be summed up with just one explanation.)
In this day and age, the term "centre left" no longer means anything different than the term "center right" meant in the Mulroney era. If we're talking about Anglos who vote PLQ, those people can only be called center-right. All left-of-center values in that party died when Lesage ws replaced by Bourassa. Since that moment, the party has had nothing but right-wing austerity freaks as its leader and nothing but right wing austerity freaks as its MNAs and candidates. Nobody active within the PLQ today, and arguably no one who remained active in it after the mid Eighties or ever fought for or even passively supported the values of the Quiet Revolution, the revolution which died with Lesage, leaving nothing behind. The only organizing principle the PLQ has now, other than licking the boots of Anglophone corporations and cutting all social benefits down to nothing , is staying within Confederation for the SAKE of staying within Confederation-and fighting for that is fighting for a nullity, for a concept which might hold nostalgic allure for Westmount Rhodesians, but as an end in itself makes no practical, positive difference in anyone's life.I don't know any right-wing Anglos. I think they all took the 401. Sorry about that Toronto. At least we didn't send you the French right wingers.
Strange. I know plenty, and I move in pretty left-wing circles. Ever read the Montreal Gazette? I'm pretty sure it isn't written in Toronto.
No I don't read it. All the anglophones I know are centre left.
The only chance the NPD-Q has of relevance is to adopt QS' old position of using a constitutional assembly process to redraw the rules of the game on working-class, multicultural grounds. There's no chance of that party ever growing as a purelt federalist party because that can only mean campaigning in a way that effective insults most francophones.
In this day and age, the term "centre left" no longer means anything different than the term "center right" meant in the Mulroney era. If we're talking about Anglos who vote PLQ, those people can only be called center-right. All left-of-center values in that party died when Lesage ws replaced by Bourassa. Since that moment, the party has had nothing but right-wing austerity freaks as its leader and nothing but right wing austerity freaks as its MNAs and candidates. Nobody active within the PLQ today, and arguably no one who remained active in it after the mid Eighties or ever fought for or even passively supported the values of the Quiet Revolution, the revolution which died with Lesage, leaving nothing behind. The only organizing principle the PLQ has now, other than licking the boots of Anglophone corporations and cutting all social benefits down to nothing , is staying within Confederation for the SAKE of staying within Confederation-and fighting for that is fighting for a nullity, for a concept which might hold nostalgic allure for Westmount Rhodesians, but as an end in itself makes no practical, positive difference in anyone's life.I don't know any right-wing Anglos. I think they all took the 401. Sorry about that Toronto. At least we didn't send you the French right wingers.
Strange. I know plenty, and I move in pretty left-wing circles. Ever read the Montreal Gazette? I'm pretty sure it isn't written in Toronto.
No I don't read it. All the anglophones I know are centre left.
A higher percentage of anglos and allos in Montreal in comparison to Francophones voted for Projet Montreal in the last municipal election according to polling. Also in Federal elections Francophones in certain regions regularly elect Conservative candidates while the Conservatives haven't won in Quebec ridings with a high anglo population in decades. My point in saying this isn't to say that anglophones are more progressive, its to say that they're not right wing. It all depends on region, not language.
You only point to provincial politics, but you and I both know why anglophones only vote Liberal in Quebec. They're the only federalist party that has a chance of winning seats, it has nothing to do with their fiscal policy. You act as if anglophones control the Liberal party... laughable. We don't control the Liberals, we're their prisoners because they know we have nowhere else to go. Since 1998, 28 english language primary and secondary schools have been taken from the anglophone community (and for most of that time the Liberals were in power, so anglos can't just say "damn the PQ" they didn't do most of this) what did they do to increase enrollment in english schools to stop the closures? Nothing. Also give the Rhodesians bs a rest, you're reading too many Journal de Montreal facebook comments.
The PLQ mostly lcks the boots of francophone corporations these days, Ken.
The PLQ mostly lcks the boots of francophone corporations these days, Ken.
OK, I'll amend that to it licks the boots of the corporations. In any case, the PLQ has forever abandoned everything the Quiet Revolution has been about, and has been nothing but a party of the privileged center-right since the 1970 election.
Of course the underlying tragedy here is allophones (and I'm thinking mostly of allophones who were also Latin-speaking people of Catholic backgrounds, especially Italians and Portuguese), who view themselves as anglophones and enemies of the Québécois). And yes, I know that retrograde and close-minded groups among the Québécois have a share in the blame. But it was a class struggle between the ethnic élites and progressive labour and community associations in those and other communities, such as the Greeks, and tragically, the left lost and we are left with this bloody mess.
Fortunately, the foreguard of the Latin American community were refugees and politically-motivated emigrants from the Cono sur, especially Chile (as Argentines were more likely to have European citizenship) but also Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. They were well-aware of the murderous downside of the American dream and boosted by the solidarity shown by the Québec labour movement.
Quebec anglophones are Quebecois too, aren't they?
