Premier Charest avoided gloating about his election chances on Saturday even though a new poll showed the Liberals possibly steaming toward a majority government on Dec. 8. “You have to take it with a grain of salt,” Charest said.
A CROP poll showed the Liberals have the support of 42 per cent of Quebecers, compared with 31 per cent for the Parti Quebecois and 15 per cent for the ADQ.
The poll would seem to reflect the widely held view that Charest has given good government since the last election two years ago. Budgets have been balanced and Quebec is enjoying widespread social peace. An English rights party under Allan Nutick couldn’t even get off the ground. Nutick will be soundly defeated in NDG where he is running.
Both the Parti Quebecois and its leader, Pauline Marois, are in the doldrums. The party is so divided on the sovereignty issue (which Marois soft pedals) that fistfights have broken out at several nomination meetings. An internal poll shows that Marois is perceived as a wealthy upper class matriarch. Signing her advertising with her first name, “Pauline” does not seem to have helped much.
Poor Mario Dumont and his ADQ are going down the drain. Many of his candidates are weak and he is desperately trying to develop a divisive issue to hang onto. The ADQ won 41 seats the last time. He’ll be lucky to win 10 this time.
A majority win by Charest will guarantee a strong federalist government in Quebec for the next four years.
Do you agree?
Don’t know about you Neil but to me Quebec politics is hopelessly petty.
NOT ONE PARTY SPEAKS FOR ME.
I thought Dumont would but…bah.
Meh.
A political poster is an invitation to come on board. I noticed that Charest has invited my neighbors, who are French-Canadian, to come aboard by way of the posters, but he has not invited me nor any other English-speaking Canadians as the posters are not (English/French) bilingual.
Polls can be misleading. The vote spread is most important. How much of that 41% is concentrated in Montreal where, in most precincts 3 voters = 1 voter in the others and even 5:1 in the Gaspé/Iles-de-la Madeleine and the North Shore. What part is francophone? It matters outside Montreal.
And yes the posters should be bilingual…but Bill 101 forbids it and can you imagine the outcry fron the PQ, the Parti Indépendantiste and Qébec Solidaire. Not to mention la Société nationale des québécoises et des québécois and the Société St-Jean-Baptiste. The PLQ would dip below 30%.
Neil writes:
A majority win by Charest will guarantee a strong federalist government in Quebec for the next four years.
I weep when I read stuff like this.
I wouldn’t call Charest a federalist, let alone a strong federalist.
Sure, I left Quebec 14 years ago and reading the online version of the Gazette every morning is not the best way to keep my finger on the pulse of Quebec but, Jeez Louise, the Liberal Party of Quebec is the party of Bill 150, passed in 1992. Calling for a unilateral declaration of independence if the results of a referendum on separatism was 50% plus one vote, Bill 150 surpassed anything the PQ had done up to that point. Although later amended, many of the most radical parts of the law still remain intact.
The Liberals still fully endorse and support the race law/hate law known as Bill 101.
Have you ever heard Charest refer to himself as a Canadian? I understand it’s like pulling teeth to even get him to acknowledge anything good Canada has done.
No, Neil, Charest is neither a federalist nor a strong federalist. What he is, is a soft separatist. Indeed, I would even call him a dishonest separatist.
The PQ are honest separatists; the Liberals are dishonest separatists.
It wouldn’t hurt Dumont, who went to Concordia, to spill and spew some words in English during any of his speeches.
Not that I care either way. It’s a fact in Quebec. It’s rationalized along the lines of “we’re well treated” here. Gee, thanks. I guess.
Well, Tony, I think we must agree to disagree.
I know Jean Charest slightly. During the referendum campaign of 1995 I heard him warmly praise Canada many times.
He is as strong a federalist as Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chretien or Stephen Harper.
Many Quebecers will vote for him on Dec. 8 because of his strong federalism.
Neil writes:
I know Jean Charest slightly. During the referendum campaign of 1995 I heard him warmly praise Canada many times.
Neil, I care not a hoot what these alleged federalist Liberal leaders do when, in opposition, they head the “no” side during separation referendums.
Nor do I place much credibility or truthfullness in what they and their Liberal MNA minions tell us anglos whenever they are west of St. Denis Boulevard.
I do, however, care very much what they do and say when they are in power and govern. That’s where we see their true colours.
Neil, care to tell us what the great federalist Jean Charest has done that could possibly be labelled pro-Canadian or pro-federalist when he has been Premier (and, please, don’t hurt yourself trying too hard)?
Tony, while you are away, Charest has been instrumental with Ontario and BC in creating the Federation Council a valid tool to reinforce Canadian unity, where all the provincial and territory premiers get their say and usually come to a consensus very difficult to ignore even for a semi dictator like Harper. By getting some longstanding irritants with Ottawa settled, v.g. fiscal imbalance that other provinces profited by, some infrastructure deals good also for other provinces he strenghtened Canada and effectively lowered support for separatism in Québec. I’m sure Neil could come up with more but at 5.55am that’s the best I can come up with.
That’s a good list, Paul.
Paul:
Thanks for the list. I was not familiar with the Federation Council and will have to research it. I hope it is not just another “where is my booty” vehicle for getting Quebec more transfer and equalization payments, but I will be happy to stand corrected if that is not the case.
I’m not sure I understand your example you cite of one of the longstanding irritants Charest settled with Ottawa: “fiscal imbalance that other provinces profited by.” ‘Fraid that sounds suspiciously like “Quebec has been screwed out of some free money from some silly federal transfer payment scheme and if you cook the books the way we want to, you owe us money.” But, again, maybe I’m being unnecessarily cynical and, with more information from you, I can be persuaded that I’m wrong.
As for “effectively lowering support for separatism in Quebec”: I’ve brought this up before on this forum when I’ve pointed out that support for separatism in Quebec comes and goes in waves. Separatism is now considered to be at the bottom of the trough in terms of support yet polls show an astounding 36% support (i.e. 45% of all francophones because there is virtually zero support amongst non-francophones).
If that’s considered a low percentage of support, just wait until the next great humiliation — imagined or real — is visited upon the French Quebecer (these great humiliations come in waves, too, just as the sun rises and sets each day). Then we’ll see what happens to those numbers.
But, Neil, your insistence upon Charest being the great federalist you claim him to be means you should be able to augment Paul’s list without much difficulty…can’t you come up with anything?
Well, yes, Tony.
Charest lives in Westmount which is one of the greatest federalist bastions in the country.
Neil writes:
Charest lives in Westmount which is one of the greatest federalist bastions in the country.
…and its Liberal MNA is Jacques Chagnon who is, of course, a separatist.
Why do I blaspheme thus and cast dispersions upon a man who always has and will continue to claim to his predominantly English-speaking Westmount constituents that he is a die-hard federalist?
Because Chagnon told me that he was a separatist himself.
Flashback to 1989. Westmount City Hall. Pre-election. The coming-out party for William Cosgrove (flown in from Washington D.C. to be the star Liberal candidate for Westmount, selected personally by Robert Bourassa) and his annoucement as candidate. I asked Chagnon, who showed up to support his fellow candidate, what will happen if Meech Lake doesn’t go through. He looked me in the eye and said: we will separate. He was sincere, earnest, and had the glint of separatist/fascist anger in his eyes.
And I don’t think Chagnon has had any great epiphony since then about how great Canada is. All that changed was that his St. Louis riding boundaries got redistributed to encompass Westmount which, of course, then required him to start lying better.
You Westmounters thought you only had a MNA separatist when Dickie Holden switched to the PQ back in 1992. Well, guess again; you’ve had one ever since.
The citizens of Westmount may be federalist but their MNA isn’t.
If I had been a Quebecois when Meech Lake was shot down by the stagnant forces of this country, I could well have become a separatist myself. Of course, Chagnon will be elected easily by the federalists in Westmount.
Tony, all the info you need is out there on the Web, just clear the blinding Arizona sun and the blowing sand from your keyboard and screen and you’ll find it. After Charlottetown and Meech, I almost turned separatist myself. I guess I remain an old optimist fool.
I turned separatist after the Supreme Court decision of December 1988.
Well seen from here you have separated from Québec and Canada but have not joined the USA. You remind me of the Irish peasant who was against no matter who or what.
I’m the United States of Kondaks.
Meech was an anti-democratic scam.
Isn’t Charest babbling about “too much English” being spoken?
Yeah, he’s a winner alright. An opportunistic one.
exposrip wrote:
Isn’t Charest babbling about “too much English” being spoken?
Of course.
It’s 2008…30 years since the passage of Bill 101 and we’ve got to the point at which a person is considered a federalist if they supports this race law/hate law.
And it’s not just the Charest’s and Neil McKenty’s of the world; it is the Stephane Dion’s and Stephen Harper’s of the world, too.
That’s why this country must end. As wonderful as the concept of Canada is, there are other concepts that are more important.
One of those concepts is individual freedom, the cornerstones of which are free speech and freedom of association, both violated by Bill 101 (not to mention equality guarantees).
Federalists have adopted the principle that individual freedom is to be sacrified to save Canada (i.e. appease the Quebec separatists by letting them have their Bill 101).
I say we’ve got our priorities wrong. I say: if there’s any sacrificing that should be done, it’s Canada that should be sacrified for individual rights and not the other way around.
One of those concepts is individual freedom, the cornerstones of which are free speech and freedom of association, both violated by Bill 101 (not to mention equality guarantees).
Whither liberalism.
Cultural nationalism takes precedence.