- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Condolences to his family. Glad they caught the guy quickly.
Quebec Election: 4 Sep 12
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,365
- Points
- 1,160
According to this morning's news, with 99.9% of the vote counted, the results are:
Party Seats
PQ 54
Lib 50
CAQ 19
QS 2
I agree with both Infanteer and CDN Aviator: it is about the best result for which we could have hoped, given the Liberals performance in their last term, and we will see another election soon.
I am pleasantly surprised at the Liberals performance; I'm guessing it means that Quebecers wanted change, but not all (or even most) of the PQ's ideas.
Party Seats
PQ 54
Lib 50
CAQ 19
QS 2
I agree with both Infanteer and CDN Aviator: it is about the best result for which we could have hoped, given the Liberals performance in their last term, and we will see another election soon.
I am pleasantly surprised at the Liberals performance; I'm guessing it means that Quebecers wanted change, but not all (or even most) of the PQ's ideas.
I am quite satisfied with the results of a minority government.
The close race will put the sovereignty issue on the backburners for at least a while.
I'm wondering what Madame Marois will be doing with the red square issue now.
As an aside, I was very confident in Mr. Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi)
being re-elected again.
He's been there forever.
Pierre Paradis
http://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/deputes/paradis-pierre-1113/index.html
The close race will put the sovereignty issue on the backburners for at least a while.
I'm wondering what Madame Marois will be doing with the red square issue now.
As an aside, I was very confident in Mr. Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi)
being re-elected again.
He's been there forever.
Pierre Paradis
http://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/deputes/paradis-pierre-1113/index.html
- Reaction score
- 2,558
- Points
- 1,260
.... on the election results:
- Reaction score
- 2,443
- Points
- 940
The headlines right up to the result tally were citing pollsters saying 'PQ and CAQ neck-and-neck; Libs eliminated,' yet people will still refer to polls as gospel (if it backs whatever political point they're attempting to make). :not-again:E.R. Campbell said:
- Reaction score
- 4,365
- Points
- 1,160
Journeyman said:
Opinion research (polling and the analysis of polls) is an excellent tool ... for marketing. It is less and less reliable when one moves from (relatively) simple choices (like brands of soap or TV programmes) and towards more complex things, like politics, and absolutely complex issues, like beliefs or policy.
I have a sense based on anecdotal evidence that comes out after each election that:
1. Some (many?) people
2. People (sometimes) don't make up their minds until they are actually in the voting booth and then they (sometimes) vote against the trend.
I saw a discussion on one of the networks before the polls closed yesterday in which a pollster suggested that the polling figures for this election were suspect because:
a. the over 65 crowd is measured based on their proportion of the population, but seniors tend to vote in greater numbers than the rest of the population and they tend to vote Liberal in Quebec elections;
b. as Edward stated, people may declare themselves undecided when they have already made up their minds;
c. voters may conceal their choice because it seems to fly in the face of what the popular trend seems to be; and
d. support for one or more of the parties is soft and voters may change their minds at the last moment.
a. the over 65 crowd is measured based on their proportion of the population, but seniors tend to vote in greater numbers than the rest of the population and they tend to vote Liberal in Quebec elections;
b. as Edward stated, people may declare themselves undecided when they have already made up their minds;
c. voters may conceal their choice because it seems to fly in the face of what the popular trend seems to be; and
d. support for one or more of the parties is soft and voters may change their minds at the last moment.
F
fraserdw
Guest
CDN Aviator said:
The Feds best option is to simply ignore the squawking and focus on the economy. The PQ have a tendency to take Federal powers and charge twice as much in fees and taxes to administer them. If one does not give in to them while in minority, they will be forced to the polls early as their soft support disappears. It will also send a message to the PQ's soft support that separation is not going to either easy or clean with the current Federal government. Fear of the unknown is a great motivator for the voter.
- Reaction score
- 2,558
- Points
- 1,260
How a separate Quebec would transform our defence policy
Article Link
J.L. Granatstein, Special to National Post | Sep 7, 2012
The Quebec election results on Tuesday almost certainly put an end to the prospect of a secession referendum for the immediate future. With only a third of the vote and 54 seats, and with opinion polls showing only 28% in favour of another referendum, Pauline Marois has lost the ability immediately to muster nationalist Québécois for a third attempt at sovereignty. But the issue is not dead. This minority government will not last long, and if Ms. Marois governs well, she has a good chance of securing her majority in the next election, likely next year. Her rancorous election speeches — which doubtless read better in the original German, as the late, great Texas columnist Mollie Ivins once said of another politician — will need to be stored away only until the next campaign.
The prospect of a referendum has implications for Canadian defence and foreign policy. The possibility of a Parti Québécois referendum victory has even more.
The PQ’s platform makes the right noises on defence and foreign policy, pledging to remain in NATO and NORAD and to enthusiastically support UN peacekeeping. But during the election campaign, Ms. Marois attacked the Harper government’s supposed “warrior” mentality, its support for the F-35 fighter, its defence spending that metaphorically takes bread from the mouths of Quebec’s children. The reality is that no one in Quebec, or outside it, believes that an independent Quebec would want anything but the most bare-bones of constabulary duties for its military. That translates into either Canada or the United States assuming de facto responsibility for the defence of Quebec, responsibilities in which Quebec would have almost no say. Certainly both Canada and the United States are unlikely to be willing to make Quebec a third member of NORAD. There might also be opposition to allowing Quebec to join NATO. None of this may matter very much if there is no military threat to North America or Europe, but these conditions cannot be guaranteed to last forever.
Possibly bereft of alliances, certainly with its defences under others’ stewardship, how Québécois could consider this independence is most unclear.
The impact of secession on the Canadian polity would also be severe. Some other provinces might decide that Canada no longer meets their long-term needs and seek statehood in the United States or independence. Whole industries — the aviation business in Quebec built with federal subsidies, for example — would be lost to Canada. Ottawa’s power and status would be greatly diminished in every international organization (while Quebec’s, of course, would be minimal in every case), and keeping the United States friendly to Canadian survival and trade would become even more critical than it now is.
Moreover, the implications of a separate Quebec for the Canadian Forces (CF) are also severe. First, every francophone in the military would face a difficult personal choice — to go with his or her heart or head. The only possibility of a serious career lies with the CF, but Canada’s post-secession military would likely be English-speaking. It would certainly be diminished in size and talent if many, or most, of the francophones who make up 28% of the present CF left for the new republic’s quasi-military. Moreover, much of the CF’s equipment and infrastructure in Quebec would accrue to the new nation, including bases at Bagotville, Montreal and Valcartier, and the Naval Reserve headquarters in Quebec City. The CF-18s at Bagotville — unless they were flown out before the referendum (as was done just before the vote in 1995) would fall into Quebec hands, as would the equipment and most of the personnel of the Ve Brigade — some one-third of the Army’s combat strength — at Valcartier.
More on link
Article Link
J.L. Granatstein, Special to National Post | Sep 7, 2012
The Quebec election results on Tuesday almost certainly put an end to the prospect of a secession referendum for the immediate future. With only a third of the vote and 54 seats, and with opinion polls showing only 28% in favour of another referendum, Pauline Marois has lost the ability immediately to muster nationalist Québécois for a third attempt at sovereignty. But the issue is not dead. This minority government will not last long, and if Ms. Marois governs well, she has a good chance of securing her majority in the next election, likely next year. Her rancorous election speeches — which doubtless read better in the original German, as the late, great Texas columnist Mollie Ivins once said of another politician — will need to be stored away only until the next campaign.
The prospect of a referendum has implications for Canadian defence and foreign policy. The possibility of a Parti Québécois referendum victory has even more.
The PQ’s platform makes the right noises on defence and foreign policy, pledging to remain in NATO and NORAD and to enthusiastically support UN peacekeeping. But during the election campaign, Ms. Marois attacked the Harper government’s supposed “warrior” mentality, its support for the F-35 fighter, its defence spending that metaphorically takes bread from the mouths of Quebec’s children. The reality is that no one in Quebec, or outside it, believes that an independent Quebec would want anything but the most bare-bones of constabulary duties for its military. That translates into either Canada or the United States assuming de facto responsibility for the defence of Quebec, responsibilities in which Quebec would have almost no say. Certainly both Canada and the United States are unlikely to be willing to make Quebec a third member of NORAD. There might also be opposition to allowing Quebec to join NATO. None of this may matter very much if there is no military threat to North America or Europe, but these conditions cannot be guaranteed to last forever.
Possibly bereft of alliances, certainly with its defences under others’ stewardship, how Québécois could consider this independence is most unclear.
The impact of secession on the Canadian polity would also be severe. Some other provinces might decide that Canada no longer meets their long-term needs and seek statehood in the United States or independence. Whole industries — the aviation business in Quebec built with federal subsidies, for example — would be lost to Canada. Ottawa’s power and status would be greatly diminished in every international organization (while Quebec’s, of course, would be minimal in every case), and keeping the United States friendly to Canadian survival and trade would become even more critical than it now is.
Moreover, the implications of a separate Quebec for the Canadian Forces (CF) are also severe. First, every francophone in the military would face a difficult personal choice — to go with his or her heart or head. The only possibility of a serious career lies with the CF, but Canada’s post-secession military would likely be English-speaking. It would certainly be diminished in size and talent if many, or most, of the francophones who make up 28% of the present CF left for the new republic’s quasi-military. Moreover, much of the CF’s equipment and infrastructure in Quebec would accrue to the new nation, including bases at Bagotville, Montreal and Valcartier, and the Naval Reserve headquarters in Quebec City. The CF-18s at Bagotville — unless they were flown out before the referendum (as was done just before the vote in 1995) would fall into Quebec hands, as would the equipment and most of the personnel of the Ve Brigade — some one-third of the Army’s combat strength — at Valcartier.
More on link
F
fraserdw
Guest
Yeah, its all been said before. Hopefully, the next time we will prepare more openly instead of secretly flying aircraft out at the last minute.
- Reaction score
- 1,011
- Points
- 1,160
Note really. Canada could emulate the Russians who moved entire factories East as the Germans advanced, and did the same from occupied Germany after WWII.
Joking.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
not all francophones in our military come form Quebec....
A
aesop081
Guest
xo31@711ret said:
And not every francophone from Quebec gives a crap about the place...........
- Reaction score
- 13,247
- Points
- 1,010
That would probably go over about as well as the reaction to the Lib/Bloc/NDP coalition attempt in 2008.
I would let it go and allow the PQ to minority govern.
It is a different Canada this time around. Threats to separate by the PQ may well result in all sorts of intended consequences for Quebec.
I would let it go and allow the PQ to minority govern.
It is a different Canada this time around. Threats to separate by the PQ may well result in all sorts of intended consequences for Quebec.
- Reaction score
- 13,819
- Points
- 1,260
SeaKingTacco said:
Straight from my Civics OPME prof today:
"No, the PQ cannot [legally separate], with or without a majority. The Supreme Court of Canada and the Clarity Act have made it clear that Quebec could not separate from Canada without meeting certain specific requirements."
He didn't get into any more detail, but as a provincial party, I don't believe the PQ can just decide to leave. If it could, what was the point of the BQ?
Dimsum said:
Your prof is correct in the legal and constitutional realm. I submit there also is an emotional realm and there are people in Quebec who would press for a unilateral decloration of independence (UDI) once a referendum cleared the fifty percent plus one threshold. (That threshold is the position of the Federal NDP, by the way.) The UDI might or might not enjoy widespread international support except for the usual suspects, but it would create a real crisis in the country, and not just of constitutionality. I would not wish to predict how it would all turn out, except badly.
- Reaction score
- 4,365
- Points
- 1,160
Thucydides said:
Given the result, the first option, constitutionally, rested with Jean Charest; he was the Premier and he had a constitutional right to meet the National Assembly and try to win a vote of confidence. He assessed the political situation and decided, very properly and in accordance with custom, to accept that Mme. Marois had won the right to (try to) govern (but see King in 1925 - Meighan won more seats but King decided to stay on by, effectively, buying J.S. Woodsworth's support ~ there was, constitutionally, nothing wrong with that decision and Byng, the GG, very properly, said nothing).
Similar threads
