Any predictions by the Quebec Dopers on the likely outcome of the election later this month? Last poll I saw showed the Liberals expanding their lead over the PQ, and the ADQ gaining on the PQ. How’s it likely to play out? Is the ADQ likley to pull votes from the PQ, helping the Liberals pick up some seats? Or will the ADQ pull votes from the Liberals? And will the ADQ pick up seats themselves?
And, if the ADQ keeps gaining, is there a realistic chance that the PQ might be supplanted as Official Opposition?
Wow, I’m so out of touch with the news lately, I had no idea an election was coming up. I’d better get working on figuring out how to vote pre-election, while I’m in town.
I should go to sleep, but let’s give a few quick comments about the election before doing so.
The Liberals and ADQ certainly are on an ascending slope, while the PQ are losing ground, and have done so constantly for the last few months. However, Charest’s Liberal government is still quite unpopular, and that’s a strike against them. And Boisclair appears to have gained some confidence since the last few days, so he may well be able to stop his party’s decline. This said, he’s easily the least charismatic of all three main party leaders (and the least experienced), so it’s questionable whether he’ll be able to really take control of the campaign (which is what he would have to do if he wants to become premier.
Dumont of the ADQ has been the best campaigner up to now. The question, though, is whether there’s an upper bound on the number of ridings they can win. Their strongholds are in the vicinity of Quebec City and in the Beauce (roughly, the region between Quebec City, the Eastern Townships and the state of Maine). Those are more conservative regions where the ADQ’s moderate right-wing ideas and their nationalism may win them votes. They also have a shot at other rural regions, but they won’t make much gains in the cities, and certainly not in Montreal. FWIW, Dumont isn’t expecting to be the next premier, and he probably doesn’t even think that it’s likely he’ll be the next opposition leader. To answer your question, Northern Piper, the ADQ is likely to leech votes from the PQ’s more conservative supporters. Their potential for growth among Liberals is limited.
Also, the ADQ has a reputation as a party without much of a platform, and that usually defends whatever is currently popular. Now they have a platform, and it includes some interesting if rather radical measures, such as the abolition of school boards. They also took a rather strong position in the debate about the accommodation of cultural and religious minorities, even calling for Quebec to adopt a constitution detailing which rights cultural minorities are to be given. Whether this helps them or not depends on if this becomes a major campaign issue.
There has been talk about the possibility of this election leading to a minority government, see the forecasts at democraticSPACE (appears to be down right now though). It’s true, if the ADQ gains a substantial number of ridings and the PQ and PLQ are close in seats, this could happen. However, it’s not what I’m expecting. One of the two largest parties (PQ and PLQ) will be able to form a majority government with the other one becoming the official opposition. And my money, right now, is on the Liberals getting a second mandate. This would probably spell the end of Boisclair’s tenure as PQ leader. Who would replace him? I think Bernard Landry is actually interested, but would the party want him?
The west half of Montreal will go Liberal, and the east half will go PQ, with maybe a seat or two going Green or ADQ.
Politicians will spend all their time in the severely over-represented rural areas, because Elections Quebec hasn’t bothered to fairly redistribute the ridings (eg. The Sainte-Henri-Sainte-Anne riding has close to 50,000 voters. The Gaspé riding has less than 28,000).
Mario Dumont will continue to be more popular than his party, and will spend every day of the next month throwing out proposal after proposal, with only a vague idea of how he’ll actually implement them. If he does half-decently at the debate and slaughters André Boisclair, he’ll win a lot of the racist hinterland vote.
Boisclair will continue to stall, hiccup and sputter his way to convincing loyal PQ supporters not to go to the polls, and the Liberal (read Conservative) party will end up with another majority mandate, with the PQ neck and neck with the ADQ for official opposition status.
I wouldn’t say that racism is a force in rural Quebec. Rather, rural Quebec is quite homogeneous and the absence of much cultural diversity leads to an undercurrent of xenophobia, which isn’t at all the same thing. The reason why the “reasonable accommodations” are such an issue in the country is the fear that people are coming here and trying to remodel our society to the image of the one they came from, with no respect for our values. This isn’t a “racist” belief and it’s one that is actually quite common across most Western societies, at least as far as immigrants from Muslim cultures are concerned.
I don’t think the ADQ will finish ahead of the PQ, either in popular vote or seats won. You’ll see a dramatic switch in their fortunes. The ADQ is (a) peaking too early, and (b) parties with a perceived can’t-win legitimacy deficit tend to lose votes when the polls open. You’ll be surprised how many people will say “ADQ” to the pollster but mark “Liberal” or “PQ” when the time comes.
That said, Mario Dumont is a smart cookie. The strategy of leading the newsday with policy announcements is a move right out of Stephen Harper’s playbook, and it works wonderfully. Andre Boisclair and his team are fools to go into attack mode this early and this prominently. As Warrne Kinsella once put it: If you audition for the role of Opposition Leader, you’re going to win the part.
So… well, it’s not impossible.
It’s unlikely, however, that the PQ can actually win, barring some monumental Liberal gaffe.
A bad showing will mean poor Andre Boisclair will likely never see another election as PQ leader.
Fire and smoke aren’t quite the same thing either, but the former often suggests the presence of the latter. Not that this is restricted to Quebec.
I’m sure you see the difference between, for example,
[ul]
[li]being uncomfortable with the presence of a family of Arab Muslims in your neighbourhood, because from what you hear about these people and their culture, you think that maybe the wife isn’t really free to do as she likes, or maybe his husband even beats her, and you don’t want that kind of thing happening in your city; and[/li][li]disliking the presence of Arab Muslims in your neighbourhood because those people are violent (not to mention inbred) and you don’t want to see their kind when you’re in your backyard, or whatever.[/li][/ul]
The first one can be solved with education, while the second one… Well, I guess it would require a change of heart that not everyone can have.
At least you rightly point out that if there is xenophobia and racism in Quebec (and there certainly is, we’re only human after all), we’re not the only place where this happens. This is a point that I believe is lost on a certain category of anglophone Canadians.
Wanted to give this a bump after the surprising results tonight. For a while, it looked to me like the 1990 Ontario election all over again where an unprepared party was going to be thrown into government. But eventually, the Liberals managed to win enough seats (but not Charest’s) and Quebec gets its first minority government.
My initial questions:
How long until a Liberal resigns his/her seat so that the Charest will have a seat?
How long until Boisclair resigns?
Will Charest resign and run federally as a Conservative?
O frabjous day! Glory! Huzzah! Hallejulah! I thought this day would never come.
The PQ are in third place!
For the first time in my entire life the politics of Quebec will not be dominated by the separatist question. We will actually have discussion about policy issues! Should we spend more on health care, tax cuts, raise tuition fees? Who knows, who cares, at least the politicians will be talking about it. It’s so friggin cool! And long overdue!
[climbs down from ceiling]
When you look at the numbers, the Liberals got 33%, the ADQ 31%, and the PQ 28%.
Total seats are Liberals 48, ADQ 41, and PQ 36.
Dumont’s strength was in Quebec city – where civil servants were ready to toss out the Libs and the PQ – and the regions where few people have ever met a Jew/Muslim/Anglo/Black/Asian and only know what they read in the papers or see on TV.
It’s incredible just how much Islamophobia was thrown about in the last week of the campaign, be it a sugar shack operator getting threats after giving Muslims pea soup without pork, or the Journal de Montreal claiming Muslim women would show up in burkas to vote without revealing their identity. (For the record, no muslim women in Quebec ever asked to be able to vote without revealing their face. The heads of several muslim groups say there are only 2 or 3 dozen women in the province who wear veils anyway – and they’d be more than willing to show their faces to any authority figure.)
I really hope we’re not just swapping one terminally boring question for another.
Haven’t you been paying attention during the campaign? That’s already what they’re mostly talking about. We probably wouldn’t have heard much about independence if Charest hadn’t brought the issue. The PQ has to play to its base, but it isn’t clear what they could have done about it even if they had finished in first place.
What I find shocking is how proportional this result is. The Liberals are slightly over-represented, but the ADQ and PQ have a proportion of seats that is very close to their share of the popular vote. The Greens and Québec Solidaire, however, remain shut out (despite QS finishing a strong second in two ridings, and the Greens a distant second in three).
I guess this disproves the common knowledge that the first past the post system produces strong majority governments while a proportional system produces unstable situations.
You’re conflating two different events, one much less serious than the other. A sugar shack owner decided to remove the pork from its pea soup, and for some reason some journalist asked André Boisclair and someone else (I forget who it was, does someone know) what they thought about it. Both said that ham was an important part of pea soup, but none of them really cared. The more serious event was when another sugar shack owner decided to let a group of Muslims use their dance floor to pray. Some people were already in the dance room and had to leave, one of them complained, for some reason it made its way to the press, and some people responded by threatening the owner.
I certainly don’t support those who made the threats. Not only is it illegal to threaten business owners who don’t do business the way you want them to, but it’s also quite pointless and idiotic: the correct response, of course, is to stop spending you money on them, and instead spend it on businesses who do business the way you want them to. But it’s symptomatic of something we see in pretty much all Western societies: some people think immigrants (right now it’s especially Muslims) come here and want us to remodel our society to the image of the place where they came from. It’s the same thing for the veil: some people think that the veil is a symbol of the subjugation of women, and that by accepting it here, we support inequality between the genders.
All these are issues that every Western society that receives immigrants has to come to grips with. That’s what we’re doing right now in Quebec; the whole debate about reasonable accommodations was basically about what is negotiable and what isn’t about our culture. I happen to think that we’re doing a good job at integrating immigrants. Of course, some people who live in places that are quite culturally homogeneous might still be afraid, but I don’t think that’s really avoidable.
As far as I know, what happened is that the Chief Electoral Officer decided that Muslim women wearing full face covering should be allowed to vote without showing their face. There was much outcry against this decision (some said it was actually illegal), and the officer reversed his decision.
Well, if you’re talking about full face veils (like burkas), you may be right, I very rarely see those. But simple head coverings (which are often called “veils” too) are common. Of course they don’t matter here.
This said, can I ask you a question, Barbarian? And I don’t mean to offend you. When we’re discussing Quebec politics here, you’re often there, and very often you make it a point of mentioning that xenophobia exists in rural Quebec, that people there never see anyone of a different culture but still fear them, that Islam, especially, is seen as a threat by many Quebecers even when it isn’t. Now, I’m not disputing you; we have the same problem with xenophobia that is seen in many other Western societies. But what I’m wondering is if you’re mentioning this because, as a Quebecer, you consider it important to improve our society, or rather because you actually think rural – or even urban – Quebecers (presumably francophone) are noticeably more racist, anti-semitic, xenophobic or evil than other Canadians (presumably anglophone).
I’m asking because I get the impression (for more information, look at pit threads I started, or even the last sentence of my post #8 in this thread) that many anglophones living outside Quebec – or even inside, as is your case – think francophone Quebecers are a bunch of evil racists, and that they are much better than that. Of course, I believe this is wrong: all Western societies have the same problems, and we’re not much better or worse off than any other. But my impression is that many Canadians start with the idea that “Quebec is racist” and then try to fit the news towards proving this. I’m not entirely sure why they do that, but not only it is wrong, it’s also offensive to me and many other Quebecers, and I think it only obscures the fact that the rest of Canada isn’t a utopia of ethnic harmony either.
Again, I don’t mean to offend you, or to presume what you think; I’m just looking to understand what you, one anglophone Quebecer, think.
[QUOTE=severus]
I guess this disproves the common knowledge that the first past the post system produces strong majority governments while a proportional system produces unstable situations.
[QUOTE]
In 129 years and about 40 elections, majority governments were elected every single time. ONE election with a minority government represents the norm?
You’re conflating two different events, one much less serious than the other. A sugar shack owner decided to remove the pork from its pea soup, and for some reason some journalist asked André Boisclair and someone else (I forget who it was, does someone know) what they thought about it. Both said that ham was an important part of pea soup, but none of them really cared. The more serious event was when another sugar shack owner decided to let a group of Muslims use their dance floor to pray. Some people were already in the dance room and had to leave, one of them complained, for some reason it made its way to the press, and some people responded by threatening the owner.
I certainly don’t support those who made the threats. Not only is it illegal to threaten business owners who don’t do business the way you want them to, but it’s also quite pointless and idiotic: the correct response, of course, is to stop spending you money on them, and instead spend it on businesses who do business the way you want them to. But it’s symptomatic of something we see in pretty much all Western societies: some people think immigrants (right now it’s especially Muslims) come here and want us to remodel our society to the image of the place where they came from. It’s the same thing for the veil: some people think that the veil is a symbol of the subjugation of women, and that by accepting it here, we support inequality between the genders.
All these are issues that every Western society that receives immigrants has to come to grips with. That’s what we’re doing right now in Quebec; the whole debate about reasonable accommodations was basically about what is negotiable and what isn’t about our culture. I happen to think that we’re doing a good job at integrating immigrants. Of course, some people who live in places that are quite culturally homogeneous might still be afraid, but I don’t think that’s really avoidable.
As far as I know, what happened is that the Chief Electoral Officer decided that Muslim women wearing full face covering should be allowed to vote without showing their face. There was much outcry against this decision (some said it was actually illegal), and the officer reversed his decision.
Well, if you’re talking about full face veils (like burkas), you may be right, I very rarely see those. But simple head coverings (which are often called “veils” too) are common. Of course they don’t matter here.
This said, can I ask you a question, Barbarian? And I don’t mean to offend you. When we’re discussing Quebec politics here, you’re often there, and very often you make it a point of mentioning that xenophobia exists in rural Quebec, that people there never see anyone of a different culture but still fear them, that Islam, especially, is seen as a threat by many Quebecers even when it isn’t. Now, I’m not disputing you; we have the same problem with xenophobia that is seen in many other Western societies. But what I’m wondering is if you’re mentioning this because, as a Quebecer, you consider it important to improve our society, or rather because you actually think rural – or even urban – Quebecers (presumably francophone) are noticeably more racist, anti-semitic, xenophobic or evil than other Canadians (presumably anglophone).
I think most people would be quick to indentify specific racial tolerance issues in most areas of Canada. Nova Scotia is actually very well known for anti-black racism; it’s been a pretty major issues in the news at times. Racial mistrust has often been a big deal in B.C. Racism is an extremely popular topic in Ontario. Let’s not even get into our treatment of aboriginals.
The reason people are talking about it with respect to Quebec’s election is that QUEBEC is talking about it. It was actually an issue. It’s kind of strange to be offended that people from other parts of Canada were discussing the Quebec election with regards to the same issues Quebecois were discussing.
I recently did a story about Media Coverage during the election campaign.
Some stats about how often things were covered:
Controversies: 23%
Sovereignty: 15%
Polls: 6%
Municipal affairs: 5%
Economy:4%
Health: 4%
Regions: 3.5%
Infrastructure: 3.25%
Family/Education/Environment COMBINED: 6%
The biggest controversy was over “reasonable accomodation” aka The Muslim Issue. And some of those controversies were drummed up by reporters looking for an angle to cover the election and play to hysteria (not all my colleagues are honorable people, to no one’s surprise). The whole face veil thing is a prime example that blew way out of proportion. When the province’s chief election officer has to hire armed bodyguards because he’s getting death threats after making a decision (and it’s a decision he never should have had to make, since no veiled women were asking to stay veiled while voting), you know something is wrong.
You should know that I, personally, am a xenophile who has been immersing himself in other cultures since I could tie my own shoes. I abhor bigotry, racism and prejudice and frequently lambasted my grandfather for his old world views when I was still a young lad.
So I really did not like it when my work took me to small town Quebec and I was treated like a leper because I spoke English. My French was pretty good at the time, so it was easy to experiment – introducing myself in French in one town, and in English in the next – and it was simply stunning how much casual bigotry was revealed in my presence. It was like walking into a movie about the deep south – just switch ethnic groups.
The bizarre thing is that most of these people didn’t really know anything about any ethnic group except their own: they’d never met any English, Jews, Muslims, blacks… but they knew in their bones that were all bad people that they’d never want to meet.
I’ve since travelled around North America and much of Europe, and I have to say that in terms of bigotry, Quebec is a generation or three behind most of the places I’ve been. Yeah, you’ll find some suburban Vancouverites who can’t stand Indians – but most of them have the good sense to keep it to themselves before running off at the mouth. Whereas I’ve worked with francophones in Montreal who hiss “Je deteste les noirs” the second a black customer walks out of the room.
Do I think I’m better than that? Hell yeah! So are the overwhelming majority of people I’ve met in Montreal, the rest of Canada, the U.S. and Europe.
Do I want rural Quebecers to realize that “les autres” aren’t a threat to their way of life? Hell yeah – and I think they’re capable of changing their attitudes too.
We’ve gone through the generational shift, where those who came of age during the Quiet Revolution looked down their noses at the English in order to lift themselves up. But that time has passed – now it’s time for rural quebecers to stop looking down their noses at every else, and realize that if some guy wants pork-free pea soup, it’s not going to destroy the culture.
I guess I should have been clearer. Our current electoral system favours bipartism, which favours majority governments. Common wisdom says that this is a good think about majoritarian systems, since they produce stable governments. We are now in a situation, both federally and in Quebec, where many parties can expect to gain seats. When this happens, no, the “first past the post” system doesn’t necessarily lead to stable governments.
Fair enough (although Barbarian’s post says differently). This said, I find it a little unexpected to see people all over Canada talk about Quebec’s election. I’m interested in provincial elections all over Canada, but that’s because I’m a political nerd. (And even then I don’t necessarily know what the important issues are.) They really aren’t that important for people outside of the province.
That’s odd, because health, education and the environment (as well as the economy) were the most important issues. And they are issues where the different parties’ position differs, so it’s not like they all say the same thing and it’s not really worth covering it. Can you tell me what methodology you used, and in which media you found these stories?
Well, the media are looking for stories that will catch people’s eyes and sell copies (or increase viewership). I especially followed the campaign with Radio-Canada and (occasionally) Le Devoir, and I think they did a good job, but at some point we turned to TQS (our television set doesn’t like Radio-Canada, for some reason ;)) and I must admit that the stories they covered didn’t seem quite as important. (Who wants to hear about the crazy lady screaming at Pierre Curzi, or even hear the crazy lady, especially since you can’t understand a word she says?) So yeah, there are stronger and weaker media outlets.
Great. I can’t say I’ve been immersing myself in other cultures forever, but I’m thinking of experiencing other cultures at some point. And I certainly am not a xenophobe.
Well, I don’t know how I would be received if I went to rural (non-Eastern or Northern) Ontario and spoke to people in French. My guess is that most of them would politely tell me that they don’t speak French, but I’m sure that others would remind me that we’re in Ontario, and things are in English, and some would do worse. It could be an interesting test, but I’m probably too shy to try it.
Well, maybe your problem is that Quebecers are more outspoken. Doesn’t make us more bigoted, but it might make you notice it more.
You know, I’ve never heard anything like that. I’ve lived in Gatineau and now Sherbrooke; since they are largish cities I guess I can compare them with Montreal. Yes, bigotry does exist (often against Muslims, as you point out, but I’m sure you’ll recognize, as I’ve said before, that (1) that’s common to the entire Western world and (2) it’s an overreaction to a real concern), but frankly I can’t say I know people who hate blacks (to use your example), or at least I don’t know people who admit they hate blacks. Of course, it’s likely that I’m younger than you and as such we don’t hang out with the same people.
Or maybe the fact that I’ve lived in Gatineau most of my life has an impact? Gatineau is a suburb of Ottawa, so maybe we’re culturally closer to Ontarians and therefore better? I guess I’ll be in Sherbrooke for quite some time (doing my Ph.D.), so I’ll get back to you in a few months. I’ll try to keep an open mind (even though I’m proud to be a Quebecer) to help advance science.
You see, that’s the part that gets me in your post and that makes me go :dubious:. I guess that you’ve read my previous post well and that you know that you’re conflating two issues and misrepresenting them, so you’re just posting this to illustrate a point, but still, what I’m hearing you say when I’m reading your sentence is “yeah, those pea soupers sure like their pea soup, eh? :rolleyes:”. Despite all you’re saying about being xenophilic and immersing yourself in other cultures, it makes me wonder if you might not have a preconceived idea about francophone Quebecers that orients your reasoning.
Let me explain myself: I think that one of the problems that we have, right now, is that we’re ostensibly “French-Canadians”. A French-Canadian is someone who is stereotypically loud, boisterous, lazy, ethnocentric and ignorant, just like the Irish are stereotypically drunk and like to fight, and the Sicilians are mobsters. And I can’t help but think that people, having the idea that Quebec is some sort of reservation for “French-Canadians”, try to look for confirmation of these prejudices. I mean, if you’re looking for Johnny Canuck, you’re going to find Johnny Canuck. Maybe you’d find him in Manitoba and he’d be of Ukrainian ancestry, but by God he’s supposed to be French-Canadian and yes, there are “French-Canadians” who will fit the stereotype.
A few years ago, while we were in a phase of “Quebec bashing” by the right-wing anglophone press, I read in some Quebec paper or magazine (sorry, don’t have any cite, I don’t remember where I read that) the suggestion that the perception of Quebec in the rest of Canada, even as of today, was shaped by the paintings of Cornelius Krieghoff. Krieghoff is a very famous Canadian painter of the 19[sup]th[/sup] century who is especially famous for his depictions of “French-Canadian” life. Of course, the “French-Canadians” in his works were the stereotypical ignorant peasants who like to drink and don’t work too hard. His paintings were very popular at the time in English Canada. Now, I’m not saying you or anyone else even know who Krieghoff is, and I’m not saying that the “French-Canadian” stereotype comes from him either, he probably just built on existing stereotypes. But I still find it interesting that the critics of Quebec usually focus on our supposed xenophobia, on the fact that we supposedly don’t work very hard (yes, I’m aware that Quebec is below the Canadian average in terms of hours worked and that Lucien Bouchard himself – a fiscal conservative – thinks we should work harder, don’t bother pointing it out), and seem to have this condescending and patronizing attitude towards Quebec.
I mean, I look around me, and I don’t see illiterate peasants. (Of course, I’m a student living in a city, so it isn’t really surprising. ;)) But I see a lot of people who are Quebecers and who are doing great things. I see scientists, inventors, business people, media people – some of whom are good! --, other opinion leaders. They aren’t all “French-Canadians” either: they may be of Irish, English, Chinese, etc. ancestry, and yet they’re living in a Quebec that is a society that has its own values, one of which is the use of the French language as a common language. And they support these values. I know that Quebec has some problems; no society is perfect. But all in all I am proud to be a Quebecer, and I don’t feel that I should be ashamed in any way of my people.
Just to throw my two cents in, I’d have to say that I’d be surprised if rural Quebeckers were any more bigotted than rural Saskatchewanians, except the targets might be different. Contempt for outsiders and generally provincial attitudes arise primarily out of a lack of exposure to the outside, and that’s a common feature of rural life. I’m not shocked by how much casual bigotry (mostly targeted at the aboriginal community) is revealed in my presence, but I am saddened by it. Perhaps Barbarian doesn’t see it when he visits us out west because we’re too busy humouring the arrogant easterner and waiting till he leaves the room before rolling our eyes and making nasty comments about him to talk trash about the lazy Indians.
I’ve only flown over the prairies, maybe rural hicks are rural hicks across the great white north. I keed! I keed!
The media analysis was done by Influence Communication. They did the study to look at the difference between what people say is important and what actually gets covered.
As for your other topics sev, I don’t know how I can have preconceived notions of French Canadians when I grew up in Montreal. My next-door neighbours were French Canadian. I can understand if I was some Johnny-come-lately – but I can still whistle the theme song to Passe-partout.
And I’m not saying that all rural Quebecers are bigoted – just that bigotry is much more prevalent than in an urban multicultural area. I don’t even know how you’d put numbers on that. If forced, I’d say that maybe 1 in 1000 Montrealers is a bigot, but 5 in 100 rural Quebecers are vocal bigots, but I freely admit to pulling that out of thin air.
That’s already what they’re mostly talking about. We probably wouldn’t have heard much about independence if Charest hadn’t brought the issue. The PQ has to play to its base, but it isn’t clear what they could have done about it even if they had finished in first place.
(And even then I don’t necessarily know what the important issues are.) They really aren’t that important for people outside of the province.
--, other opinion leaders. They aren’t all “French-Canadians” either: they may be of Irish, English, Chinese, etc. ancestry, and yet they’re living in a Quebec that is a society that has its own values, one of which is the use of the French language as a common language. And they support these values. I know that Quebec has some problems; no society is perfect. But all in all I am proud to be a Quebecer, and I don’t feel that I should be ashamed in any way of my people.