Week 2 starts with a bang: why traditional left/right politics don't work in Quebec

Today's news centred around Pierre-Karl Peladeau, CEO and president of Quebecor Media and Sun Media. Generally seen as right-wing, Peladeau shocked the political world today by announcing his candidacy with the PQ, the same party closely tied to unions, the same party widely labelled as left.

But that's just it. In Quebec, left/right politics plays second fiddle to none other than the issue of sovereignty. That's why Lucien Bouchard was a federal Progressive Conservative minister turned leader of the Bloc turned PQ premier; why Francois Legault, a former Bouchard minister, is now leader of the CAQ; why Tom Mulcair, federal NDP leader, was a minister under Jean Charest's Quebec Liberals, who himself was leader of the federal PCs.

While, in theory, the PQ and the PLQ are a little left and right of centre, respectively, in practice they have been centrist. Their governing styles have not been much different, save for on matters of culture, language, and nationhood. It is for this reason that voters on both sides of the spectrum feel they belong to these parties, under the banner of either "sovereigntist" or "federalist."

It's also why the CAQ (or its predecessor the ADQ) never did too well, except in that massive protest vote in 2007. It's not because the Quebecois are any "more liberal" than the rest of Canada. The CAQ are, officially, soft nationalists; neither sovereigntist nor federalist. Their raison d'etre is economic conservatism, but economic conservatives have already found a home in either the PQ or the PLQ, and for the most part, they're content. If not, sovereignty or federalism serves as a force compelling them to stay, despite minor grievances.

We'll probably see by the Friday update whether today's news has impacted the parties' support. For today, a CROP poll this weekend confirms the close race. The only difference is a slightly higher number for the CAQ. And so:

PQ     34-40% [median 37.2] (0.9) 55-74 seats [median 63] (=)
PLQ    34-40% [median 37.2] (0.9) 44-63 seats [median 55] (=)
CAQ    13-17% [median 15.5] (1.6)  4- 8 seats [median  5] (=)
QS      6- 8% [median  7.3] (0.3)  2- 2 seats [median  2] (=)
ON      0- 2% [median  1.0] ( = )  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
PVQ     0- 2% [median  0.9] (0.1)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  0.9] ( = )  0- 1 seats [median  0] (=)

Politically Uncorrect continues to project a PQ MAJORITY of 1.

It's a tie! Or is it?

End of week update. I'd like to hold to a Friday and Monday posting schedule this election cycle, unless a huge slew/barrage of polls show up.

Anyway, a Forum poll came out yesterday and moved the projection a little. The regional breakdowns are a little odd, but not totally out of line. Good poll for the PLQ.

The new numbers (changes in brackets, red means loss):
PQ     35-41% [median 38.1] (0.3) 56-75 seats [median 63] (2)
PLQ    35-41% [median 38.1] (2.4) 43-62 seats [median 55] (4)
CAQ    12-16% [median 13.9] (1.6)  3- 7 seats [median  5] (2)
QS      6- 8% [median  7.0] (0.5)  2- 2 seats [median  2] (=)
ON      0- 2% [median  1.0] (0.5)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
PVQ     0- 2% [median  1.0] ( = )  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  0.9] ( = )  0- 1 seats [median  0] (=)

Even with a tie, the PQ has a much better chance of winning the most seats. Again, this is due to the Liberals piling up useless majorities in Anglo Montreal ridings. However, there are a lot of close races elsewhere, and as the seat ranges demonstrate, almost anything can happen. Also, there is a riding where the independent candidate, an incumbent who left the PLQ, who may be a factor in her seat. That said, currently I believe she is not personally popular enough to hang on over the party-backed candidates.

For now, Politically Uncorrect projects a razor thin PQ MAJORITY of 1.

Ready, set, go! Quebec votes on April 7

Eighteen months into her minority mandate, Pauline Marois (PQ) has pulled the plug on her own government in an attempt to secure a majority, on the back of her "secular charter" bill. While English Canada spurned this controversial (some have called it xenophobic) piece of legislation, it became increasingly popular among francophones, which, unsurprisingly, are the key demographic of Quebec elections.

A review of the parties:
PQ - Sovereigntist, centre-left party (Pauline Marois)
PLQ - Federalist, centrist party (Philippe Couillard)
CAQ - Nationalist, centre-right party (Francois Legault)
QS - Sovereigntist, far left party (Francoise David & Andres Fontecilla)
ON - Splinter party from the PQ (Sol Zanetti)
PVQ - Green  (Alex Tyrrell)

The first numbers from the weighted rolling poll average:
PQ     35-40%  [median 37.8]  56-78 seats  [median 65]
PLQ    33-38%  [median 35.7]  38-60 seats  [median 51]
CAQ    14-17%  [median 15.5]   5- 9 seats  [median  7]
QS      7- 9%  [median  7.5]   2- 2 seats  [median  2]
ON      0- 2%  [median  1.5]   0- 0 seats  [median  0]
PVQ     0- 2%  [median  1.0]   0- 0 seats  [median  0]
Other   0- 2%  [median  0.9]   0- 0 seats  [median  0]

The PQ has a slight electoral advantage due to the francophone vote, as mentioned above. On the other hand, the Liberals pile up massive (and useless) majorities in the anglophone Montreal constituencies.

With this reasoning, Politically Uncorrect projects a PQ MAJORITY of 5.

Remembrance gone wrong

Lately the white poppy campaign has, again, reared its ugly head. These people claim that the red poppy glorifies war, and that the white poppy is a better symbol, representing peace. They think that they are doing the world a service.

They are vastly misguided. At best.

That they assert red poppies are in celebration of war is indicative of ignorance. It also contains a highly offensive insinuation: that the veterans who hand out red poppies are glorifying and celebrating war. I submit that these very people who experienced the living hell of the battlefield are the ones who most want to put war behind them.

Poppies were never meant to glorify or celebrate war, and neither was Remembrance Day. If these people took a proper look at history, they'd know that Remembrance Day, November 11, is in celebration of the Armistice; that is, the cessation of war, in 1918. That said, maybe it's not their fault entirely. Perhaps some fault lies with our education system. If they didn't feed us the boring tripe that they currently do, maybe students would actually learn Canadian history, and this sort of travesty could be prevented.

The fact that this campaign has taken on a blatantly political overtone, despite Remembrance Day being a day where we are supposed to set aside differences in order to remember those who fought and died for our country, is a further slap in the face to veterans across the country. Are you trying to tell these men and women, who fought and died for our nation, that it is wrong of them to continue handing out the traditional red poppy, in remembrance of, very often, their friends and family?

But at the very heart of this discussion, the entire idea of a peaceful world is steeped in the strongest naivety. These bleeding-heart pacifists are the same voices that join in the call for the felling of dictators across the globe. How, exactly, do they propose to accomplish that feat? With flowers, rainbows, and unicorns? War is a great evil, but it is also a necessary evil, for "peace without justice is tyranny." There can be no true peace without tyranny, but the world is inherently unjust, and there will always be those who aspire to tyranny.

Our very best died so we could live freely. They died so we could speak freely. They did not die so that people with their digestive tracts reversed could speak through their arse and s*** through their mouths.

Lest we forget.

Lest we remember incorrectly.

#RealBulls***

This here, the new Trudeau ad, is absolute shite. It claims that the average income in Canada has only increased 15% over the last 30 years. That is patently untrue. The inflation adjusted figures are 60,200 in 1983 and 76,000 in 2013. That is a 26% growth. However, the chart on the ad uses 1981 and 2011. Why? Because 1981 is close to a local maximum (63,100) and 2011 (75,000) is lower than the most current figures. Even when fiddling with the years like that, the growth is 19%, not 15%.

The ad also compares income to GDP. While accurate in his claim that real GDP has more or less doubled over the past 30 years, this is comparing apples to oranges. Of course GDP has grown at a rate greater than average income, largely because the population of Canada has also grown, from around 25 million then to 35 million now.

The only passable comparison that can be made is with per capita GDP, which has grown at a much more sedate pace over the past 30 years: from about 24,000 to 36,000 (or about 50%). Even then, this figure is going to rise much faster than average income because a lot of economic growth is in increased trade. That will inflate GDP growth above income because that money doesn’t flow through to individuals. You would think the leader of a major federal party would at least attempt to understand basic economics, but apparently not.

If this type of misrepresentation of facts and lack of understanding for economics is propagated by the leader of the party, the Liberals have no business telling us that the Conservatives are doing wrong by Canadians.

Also, there is no point at all for going back 30 years. If the Liberals were trying to convey that the Conservatives are bad for the economy and that the Liberals would do better, that effort fell flat on its face. That is because, for 17 of those 30 years, it was the Liberals who were in power. And also because both numbers are, actually, still going up. There's a "rah rah!" for the Canadian economy, but nothing more.

More to the point is, the Conservatives have been in office since 2006, and income has grown 5.4% since then, despite a global financial crisis. By contrast, the United States median income dropped 5.2% during that period.

Anybody who bothers to stop and think would know what complete bollocks this is. It screams incompetence and irrelevance. But, hey, anything to win a couple votes from the ignoramuses out there, eh? Because that's who you want supporting your party!

Oh, and parting shot: this ad still hasn't told us what your priorities are, Justin. Maybe the party of the mushy middle is just that. Mushy.

NS final call: Liberals poised for majority

Over the past weekend, there was a noticeable shift of support away from the Liberals and to the PCs. That tide, however, as since been stemmed. The NDP also experienced a minor uptick.

While the number of undecideds is still huge, at about 20-25% of the population, it would take nearly all of that to break the NDP's way for them to retain government. Add to that fact that there's no eleventh hour Forum poll showing a suddenly much closer race, and Stephen McNeil looks set to be Premier-elect tomorrow evening:

NDP       27-31%  [median 28.9]  10-18 seats  [median 14]
Liberal   44-48%  [median 46.0]  27-35 seats  [median 31]
PC        22-26%  [median 23.7]   4- 8 seats  [median  6]
Green      0- 2%  [median  1.0]   0- 0 seats  [median  0]
Other      0- 1%  [median  0.5]   0- 0 seats  [median  0]

Since the last update, the NDP has edged up 1.0pp and 4 seats, and the PCs have jumped 4.8pp and 2 seats. This was at the expense of the Liberals, who have lost 5.6pp and 6 seats. However, given the Liberals' massive lead over the middle portion of the campaign, it was much a case of too little, too late for Premier Dexter.

And so, Politically Uncorrect's final call: LIBERAL MAJORITY of 11.

And if, by yet another freak of Canadian politics, the NDP manage to retain the seat of government tomorrow, the Leafs will most certainly be the 2014 Stanley Cup Champions. You read it here first.

NS Libs support solidifies, lead by 23.7

Since last week, the Nova Scotia Liberals have moved up, the PCs have moved down, and the NDP has been stable. Abacus Data has joined CRA in the field, and the results are similar, with the small difference being Abacus has the PCs higher at the expense of the Liberals. Still, the Liberal lead remains massive in both polls.

The fly in the ointment is the high percentage (20-30%) of undecided voters that both firms are recording. This is the primary reason for somewhat large ranges in the projection, but the Liberal lead is large enough that a majority remains the only likely outcome.

NDP       26-31%  [median 27.9]   6-16 seats  [median 10]
Liberal   48-53%  [median 51.6]  31-41 seats  [median 37]
PC        17-22%  [median 18.9]   3- 5 seats  [median  4]
Green      0- 2%  [median  1.1]   0- 0 seats  [median  0]
Other      0- 1%  [median  0.5]   0- 0 seats  [median  0]

The Liberal range extends further down than up, and the NDP extends higher up than down, because governments usually wind up with an incumbency bonus. However, I'm not expecting anything like BC or Alberta despite the high undecided figure because the situation is completely different. In Alberta, the opposition was inexperienced and a bit too far right for comfort. In BC, the opposition leader was not charismatic and his party was untrusted with the economy. Stephen McNeil is personally popular and his party has been in government before without disaster.

Therefore, Politically Uncorrect projects a LIBERAL MAJORITY of 23.