Quebec Election

[Matt]

..............

[Moonlight_Graham]

Hopefully not PQ, a referendum would suck. But thats democracy.

[Matt]

It's been quite an election, the ADQ are up, the PQ are down and Charest was not re-elected...

[no yu begin wher i end]

Let them seperate. Then Canada should invade them and declare martial law.

[Guest Prosis]

Oh Derek why so much hate?

 

Personally I'm happy that the ADQ is so high. Not only do they offer an interesting alternative and new solutions to ongoing problems, they want to do it all without a seperation. Because we're not in Alberta, if we seperated we'd be in deep doodoo.

 

But the report on Option Canada should come along in the next few days and with a little luck, that ass Charest will be taken down and we'll elect ADQ as a majority government.

[no yu begin wher i end]

Oh Derek why so much hate?

Because I can. Oh, the joys of internet anonymity.

[Moonlight_Graham]

if i lived in quebec i would have probably voted ADQ because the Liberals screwed them over & i wouldn't have interest in PQ's seperatism.

 

Seems this was much of the reason ADQ did so well.

[Matt]

Before it was between the PL and the PQ, Quebec was run by the Union Nationale. They were essentially the Conservative Party with another name. However, the ran the province for over twenty years, they were successful in rural ridings. While Quebec has been progressive over the last thirty or so years, the province still has strong Conservative roots. While the two party's screwing up handed them an advatage to grab more seats. The fact that they were a rising party would have helped them in this election as well, at least in the rural ridings, which is where most if not all of their candidates were elected.

[Guest Prosis]

if i lived in quebec i would have probably voted ADQ because the Liberals screwed them over & i wouldn't have interest in PQ's seperatism.

 

Seems this was much of the reason ADQ did so well.

Yup that's what happened...luckily enough, the ADQ will probably be majority next time. People don't want to hear about separation nowadays. What Dumont proposes is somewhat similar but the difference is we don't shun Canada. It's a lot less hassle and much more peaceful and sort of breaks the whole French vs English thing.

 

And Matt, don't forget they were elected all around the Island of Montreal as well. The reason why they're not a majority government is because of Montreal who are liberals and have been for a long time. Mostly because Montrealers are afraid of Dumont for some reason (a radio host said that he was the new buggerman which was funny as hell). But now, he'll have a year maybe two to get them to know him and he should get elected next time. Quebec needs someone who's going to change stuff so we stop spending so much money on useless stuff and structures.

[Seanathon]

I may come off as an idiot here, but I'm genuinely curious, and I'm not exactly up to date on Quebec politics.

The PQ has been the ruling party for awhile now, no? If so, what happened? Has alot of the population soured on the whole separation thing? Clue me in here, okthnx.

[Crusader]

i still cant believe the adq got so many votes

[Guest Prosis]

I may come off as an idiot here, but I'm genuinely curious, and I'm not exactly up to date on Quebec politics.

The PQ has been the ruling party for awhile now, no? If so, what happened? Has alot of the population soured on the whole separation thing? Clue me in here, okthnx.

Actually the Liberals (Parti Lib

[Bizud]

The ADQ are one of the farthest-right parties in Canada. Mario Dumont's cheap populism aside, he's a doctrinaire conservative, right up there with Harper and Sarkozy. Hey, let's allow more private money in the health care system - those with money should be able to buy anything, right? Hey, let's quit being so accomodating to immigrants - they should assimilate, right? Hey, let's make it easier to fire employees and harder to unionize - we're all businesspeople aren't we? Hey, let's raise tuition fees - who cares about inequality anyway, right? Let's "get tough on crime" with longer sentences and harsher prisons - who cares if it doesn't actually reduce crime, right? Right guys?

 

Quebec is a more socially liberal place so the ADQ keeps a lid on its social conservatives, but they do exist in the party. You know, like the Reform party had its share of crazy bigots. The party always distanced itself from them, but the fact is it attracted those types for a reason. The ADQ appeals to reactionary sentiment in Quebec. And yes, they're right now benefitting from extreme disarray on the left and in the PQ to present themselves as the alternative to the Liberals.

 

Other nutjob ideas of theirs include a directly elected head of government (presidentialism or semi-presidentialism) and abolishing school boards.

 

Incidently, the left lost the election, badly. The PQ is demoralized and possibly a spent force, while the Liberals have rallied even more tightly around Charest and the minority situation will force the Liberals to lean even further to the right to secure the ADQ's support.

Edited July 9, 2007 by Bizud

[Guest Prosis]

Actually Tim, things in Quebec are peculiar compared to the rest of the country. Not in a good way. The healthcare system is going down the tube because the Parti Qu

[Matt]

Right-wing parties have "nut jobs" but so do left-wing parties too. Really I must echo Prosis' thoughts here too. The unions have way too much power, tuition isn't that bad either, and something has to be done about health care. I find it ironic that in Europe, which is supposedly the hotbed of true "Democratic Socialism" that even they have a two tier system in many of their countries, and it still works. As for their post-secondary system, well it's horrible. Yes everyone gets free education, but only the best and brightest get to go. If you screw up when you are a young dumb kid, you might as well give up. Our system is one of second chances, yes the best brightest have to pay quite a bit more, however, the kids who could not do better than C+s in school can have a second chance if they work for it in Colleges. There's only so much money to pay for everyone but the government (in BC) pays about 85% of the bill. BC has also begun offering degrees at colleges in the last five or six years. Which, is an amazing idea because this means that students who cannot afford to go to University can go after a cheaper degree instead. The college system is exactly what "social advocates" want, however, seem to rarely recognize that we have it. This means we have affordable degrees with reduced class sizes right here in our backyard.

[Bizud]

Actually Tim, things in Quebec are peculiar compared to the rest of the country. Not in a good way. The healthcare system is going down the tube because the Parti Qu

Edited July 9, 2007 by Bizud

[Guest Prosis]

It doesn't work like that, because the number of doctors is the same whether they're all in one system or split between two. The more doctors opt into the private system (to make money), the longer

 

wait times in the public system will get, not shorter. The problem is underfunding. The federal government cut payments to the provinces for health care funding in order to balance the budget. Then, once the

 

huge surpluses started coming in, did they put money back into the health care system? Nope, they cut taxes, and now the system is predictably entering a crisis of underfunding. Something needs to be done

 

alright. Quit fucking cutting taxes and put the money where it's really needed. I don't understand how people can fail to put two and two together on this one.

 

I agree about the tax cut 100%. It should've been invested more intelligently (see my other post called Jean Charest + Liberals = Arrogant Fucks). But my theory works because when they talk about

 

public/private system, they accompany those plans with forcing doctors to spend a certain amount of time per week in public hospitals before being allowed to go in the private ones. Therefore, the poor are

 

not penalized.

 

Also, I've spent plenty of time in emergency rooms. I don't know why it would be any different in Quebec but 6 hours per patient is just an exaggeration.

 

As far as that goes, let me state to you some numbers from Radio-Canada (french CBC) dated of June 11th, 2007 http://www.inforadio.ca/regions/mauricie/2...urgences.shtml

Edit: the english version of the article:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/20...ercrowding.html

 

Centre Hospitalier de Montreal: Average of 29 hours

The H

Edited July 9, 2007 by Prosis

[Bizud]

And believe it or not, the objective that the minister of health has establised is 12 hours maximum waiting. So there was no exaggeration on my part. This is common knowledge here.

 

Okay, I can see waiting for 12 hours in an emergency room, or longer. But that's not "per patient." 6 hours per patient would be ridiculous. The wait times are so long because the rooms are full of people, and boy, are they ever full of people.

 

Ohhh no, that was an old sentence in a book of rules that had been written in 1998 that said that no one could have his or her face covered to go vote. But in the media rush over the accomodations, they interpreted it differently which led to them trying to patch things up by getting someone else to declare and sign that you were really who you said you were. That rule was adapted shortly after so that no full face covered hijabs (I think those have a different name but I could be mistaken) would be allowed. You have to tell me that you wouldn't allow someone you can't identify to vote.

 

Used to be you didn't need identification to vote in Canada. A new law is changing that, federally. It will make it harder for the poor and especially homeless to vote, and it will mean more people just won't bother.

 

I would like you to clarify this because, to be quite honnest with you, I don't understand what you mean.

 

Here is an example. In the United States, there is a debate over the future of the social security system. Some say that it is not sustainable. Beginning in the Reagan years, the government started underfunding the system. Now, they point to it and say "see, public services do not work, the private sector can do the job better." It is the same story with health care in Canada. Nobody except the far-right wanted two-tier health care even ten years ago. Even Stockwell Day had to assure everybody that wasn't his agenda. Ten years of underfunding later, the health care system is in crisis and people are, rightly, demanding better, so advocates for an increased role for private health care step up with their solution. It has happened in other countries too. There is an established pattern. First, the public system is underfunded, then it is used as an argument for why the private sector could do better.

 

I agree than in an ideal world, education should be free. But we're not in an ideal world. That said, I've seen more people going on trips, going out, having cars and whatnot during my time in school than actually having a hard time making ends meet (and I was one who had a painfully hard time making ends meet and I never had the money to have a car, go out, go on trips...or even proper groceries). So you could expect me to be on the side of free education because I've live with an average salary of 150$ before taxes a week and I couldn't have any financial help from the government. But I'm realistic and I think, respectfully, that anyone thinking that Quebec students are to be taken in pity because of this raise is living in a whole other world.

 

Are you still in school? If the ADQ has their way, tuition fees will skyrocket. Not just increase. They will more than triple, I will bet money on it. Will a good education still be cheaper in Quebec than in, say, the United States? Of course, but the question is, where should the money for a good education system come from? I don't think it should come from students. The other questions are, will a tuition increase mean way more student debt and will it mean some people will not end up going to post-secondary education? Yes to both.

[Guest Prosis]

Okay, I can see waiting for 12 hours in an emergency room, or longer. But that's not "per patient." 6 hours per patient would be ridiculous. The wait times are so long because the rooms are full of people, and boy, are they ever full of people.

 

Clearly you've never been in our emergency rooms. My wife bumped her head last year and started having the same symptoms as a cerebral contusion. We went to the emergency room where we waited for 7 hours. I know a woman who went to the emergency with her son who had a pretty bad cut, she waited 12 hours. It is a number by patient.

 

Used to be you didn't need identification to vote in Canada. A new law is changing that, federally. It will make it harder for the poor and especially homeless to vote, and it will mean more people just won't bother.

 

Come on man, how stupid would that be. I go to poll number 3 "Hello I'm Mister This". The I go to poll number 12 "Hello I'm Mister That". You NEED to identify who's voting. I don't see how that would affect poor people. Homeless I have to agree though.

 

Here is an example. In the United States, there is a debate over the future of the social security system. Some say that it is not sustainable. Beginning in the Reagan years, the government started underfunding the system. Now, they point to it and say "see, public services do not work, the private sector can do the job better." It is the same story with health care in Canada. Nobody except the far-right wanted two-tier health care even ten years ago. Even Stockwell Day had to assure everybody that wasn't his agenda. Ten years of underfunding later, the health care system is in crisis and people are, rightly, demanding better, so advocates for an increased role for private health care step up with their solution. It has happened in other countries too. There is an established pattern. First, the public system is underfunded, then it is used as an argument for why the private sector could do better.

 

I don't see where they are underfunding to claim that it's not working. I doubt the government is trying to eliminate public schools and hospitals.

 

Are you still in school? If the ADQ has their way, tuition fees will skyrocket. Not just increase. They will more than triple, I will bet money on it. Will a good education still be cheaper in Quebec than in, say, the United States? Of course, but the question is, where should the money for a good education system come from? I don't think it should come from students. The other questions are, will a tuition increase mean way more student debt and will it mean some people will not end up going to post-secondary education? Yes to both.

 

No I'm done with school now but I have spent my whole time there in great poverty. But I would like you to tell me how you know that tuition fees will skyrocket if the ADQ is elected. I've read their programs thouroughly and have never seen any plans to increase tuition fees drastically. Why shouldn't the money come from students? They're the ones taking advantage of the system. And my parent's generation had up to 30000$ debt when they got out of post secondary education and they survived. I'm all for free stuff but there comes a point when you have to resiliate yourself to the fact that not everything can be.

[Bizud]

Come on man, how stupid would that be. I go to poll number 3 "Hello I'm Mister This". The I go to poll number 12 "Hello I'm Mister That". You NEED to identify who's voting. I don't see how that would affect poor people. Homeless I have to agree though.

 

This was brought up as a concern in the recent Norwegian election. Apparently Canadian observers were shocked to discover that they seem to have an entirely trust-based system. It's never been a problem for them. What I want to know is when has it been a problem for us? Again, until the new law change comes into effect, you do not need any ID to vote in a federal election.

 

Poor people are far less likely to have a passport or a driver's license because they're less likely to drive or leave the country. But also, simply announcing "new security rules for voting" is enough to discourage many from even showing up.

 

No I'm done with school now but I have spent my whole time there in great poverty. But I would like you to tell me how you know that tuition fees will skyrocket if the ADQ is elected. I've read their programs thouroughly and have never seen any plans to increase tuition fees drastically. Why shouldn't the money come from students? They're the ones taking advantage of the system. And my parent's generation had up to 30000$ debt when they got out of post secondary education and they survived. I'm all for free stuff but there comes a point when you have to resiliate yourself to the fact that not everything can be.

 

Education serves a public good. We, collectively, want an educated population. It also serves an equalizing function, particularly if students are not saddled with the brunt of the cost. How do I know that the ADQ would see tuition fees spike? They promised to end the practice of tuition freezes, and it's what governments all over the rest of the country did. For example, the BC Liberals. More to the point, we could have free education in Canada, in any Canadian province. No reason why we couldn't.

 

I don't see where they are underfunding to claim that it's not working. I doubt the government is trying to eliminate public schools and hospitals.

 

After fifteen years of the federal government not paying their share, the public system is in a crisis NOW. So, NOW, people are willing to look at private delivery options because the viability of the public system is in question, NOW. Do you understand that this was not the case fifteen years ago? That fifteen years ago you couldn't talk about private health care in this country without being called far right wing? That two-tier health care is only being talked about because the public system has been mismanaged? That the public health care system could work perfectly with shorter wait times? That is what I am talking about. And if private health care expands in this country, public health care will contract, as there are only so many doctors to go around.