Week 3: debate prep

Leger released a poll last Friday which I didn't get a chance to put into the projection, but it basically confirms to close race. There's a little bit of good news for everyone, except the CAQ.

So, the numbers:
PQ     34-40% [median 37.4] (0.2) 55-74 seats [median 63] (=)
PLQ    34-40% [median 37.4] (0.2) 45-64 seats [median 56] (1)
CAQ    12-16% [median 14.3] (1.2)  3- 5 seats [median  4] (1)
QS      6- 8% [median  8.0] (0.7)  2- 3 seats [median  2] (=)
ON      0- 2% [median  0.9] (0.1)  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
PVQ     0- 2% [median  0.9] ( = )  0- 0 seats [median  0] (=)
Other   0- 2% [median  1.0] (0.1)  0- 1 seats [median  0] (=)

The Liberals picked up a seat from the CAQ. The most troubling news for the CAQ is that they have no one region of strength anymore, since the Quebec City region is moving away from them in favour of the Liberals. It looks as though the sovereignty talk has moved some warier people into the federalist option. What's interesting is of the remaining CAQ backers, they prefer the Liberals 43-17 over the PQ as a second choice. Philippe Couillard has a clear path to victory. Whether he is successful in attracting these CAQ voters remains to be seen.

Pauline Marois still has enough francophone support to win an election, with a decent shot at a majority. However, it's clear that she can't rest on her laurels yet. With such a close race, Thursday's debate will be key. We'll likely see if that manages to shake things up the week after.

For now, Politically Uncorrect continues to project a PQ MAJORITY of 1.

Was PKP a bit of an own goal by the PQ?

Bob Rae had the line of the day Friday when he said that a Quebec civil servant or a trade unionist voting for Pierre-Karl Peladeau (nicknamed PKP) would be "like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders." Witty soundbite regardless, he has a point. The PQ has sold itself out by courting a corporate media czar in an attempt to shore up their own economic credentials.

A star candidate and a former president and CEO such as Peladeau will not be content to sit as a mere backbencher. If the PQ is re-elected, he will almost certainly feature in the cabinet. But, attempting to forge a cabinet out of social democrats and economic conservatives is like adding oil to water. The two will not mix well.

So what is Pauline Marois counting on, then? What would be the proverbial glue on which she is depending to hold a team together? As expounded on in the last post, traditional left-right politics plays second fiddle to sovereigntist-federalist politics in Quebec. Marois is likely hoping that the common goal of an independent Quebec will be enough to keep her future cabinet on the straight and narrow.

That much was evident when, during Peladeau's announcement on Monday, he proudly declared, "I am a sovereigntist!" This was followed by Marois' very public musings on the workings of an independent Quebec. However, Thursday morning came along, and with polls showing sovereignty working against the PQ, Marois and Peladeau quickly changed their tune.

During Thursday's press conference, Peladeau refused to answer any questions about sovereignty, and at one point even appeared frustrated and tried to redirect the questions toward the economy. Marois abruptly stopped mentioning Quebec as a nation. Such is the power of public opinion.

However, if sovereignty as a focusing point is wrenched away from the PQ, we return to the original question: what, exactly, does the PQ now stand for? With the entry of Peladeau, the waters are muddied. The whole point of bringing him on board was to show that the PQ isn't only a party of trade unionists and social democrats.

But is that really such a good idea, or has Marois only found a wedge to drive within her own party? If she wins this election, will she have only given herself future headaches trying to head a fractious cabinet? And if she fails, or even wins just a minority, will inviting PKP only have served to open the door to a leadership challenge, painful both personally and to the party?

Clearly, Bob Rae hit a sensitive spot Friday morning. Otherwise, Marois would not have taken exception to his quip, and told him to "mind [his] own business."

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.