# I have some chilling



## Noctosphere (Mar 5, 2018)

Here in Quebec, theres a very new politic part (founded in 2011) who now is Second Opposition (tell me if I say it wrong) and now, in all poll, they are going to win election on October 1st (iirc).
Not only would they win, they would be a majoritary government
Poll say that french quebecois are supporting CAQ at around 42%
While english quebecois are around 30%
Liberal Party is now declining more and more in polls, from both english and french quebecois (Liberal always had support from a majority of english quebecois)
If CAQ wins the election, it will be a first new party elected since 1976
Yes, since 1976, there was only 2 party that were elected, Quebecois Party (PQ) and Liberal Party (PLQ)
The movement of CAQ is all about "A big change in politic domain".
Honestly, it's about time that new parties get elected, both in Quebec and Canada
Back in the canadian election of 2011, we almost got a NPD government thanks to the vote of quebecois.
In fact, NPD got the role of Official Opposition in 2011-2015

So, if you're from Quebec, please share your oppinionabout the CAQ being in lead of polls 
Personally, I support the CAQ since the beginning


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 6, 2018)

Why is that chilling?

Also why do you not have a link to their manifesto or key points from it?

They have something
https://coalitionavenirquebec.org/en/ideas/nationalism/
Including a long PDF.

They claim they are a nationalist party with interests in autonomy of Quebec, but not independence from Canada*. I don't know all the meanings of nationalist within Canada, though it seemingly mirrors some of those from the UK as opposed to the US where it has some rather negative connotations. That said in the document they slip back into using independence a lot, and having now read the PDF then "independence in all but name" or stealth independence might not be a strong charge. Whether I would go so far as to say "have their independence cake and eat it too" I do not know. Were I indulging in my cynicism I might wonder if this is a long play for independence; with all that follows you spend a decade or two stoking the fires of nationalism, possibly also obviating the very real concerns about trade, the legal system, federal funds and handover of powers that discussions of independence bring ("it'll be OK" is not great policy and seemingly the chosen one for many doing such things), such that the previous close calls are no longer.

*any time there is a independence referendum anywhere that has close results (and Quebec seems to have provided some of the closest anywhere) it then tends to have a nasty habit of making all politics revolve around the next one, to the detriment of other things politics is supposed to be handling.

Amusingly they have much of the rhetoric of a right wing party that have variously enjoyed popularity in much of the world of late, however peppered throughout it all are terms and phrases I would normally see from rather more left leaning parties. [resists mock national anthem singing]. At the same time it does not especially read like either a green party, pirate party, a liberal party (note UK/Europe style definition) nor much of a centrist party. In many ways it reads like a coalition treaty bill designed for broad appeal, hopefully it does not end up an odd Frankenstein's monster of a party like so many others with similar setups. I might have to look into the history of the party's founders and current key drivers, are they the same as this has some of the hallmarks of a party somewhat taken over by someone with a personality that might have been started by academics.
There are also a lot of phrases woven throughout it all (I imagine it would be better/less clunky/more flowery in French but I can't be bothered to translate that version right now) designed for those with a "nationalistic" bent and that are only skim reading. Such things are the way of politics I guess so I will not say much more.

Anyway major claims seem to be to want to
control immigration (but not refugees) as opposed to the 70% of given numbers they have at present. A lot of this is also woven into a desire to "protect the French language" (but not step on the toes of any minority speakers of other languages). I shall spare my cynical ponderings at this point.
stop equalization (the receiving of Federal money, some 9.3 billion annually where GDP of the province is somewhere around 376 billion**, or if you prefer http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/govt56b-eng.htm says 87,994 million revenues with 91,023 million expenditures), which according to the document can be rather variable and they invoke the healthcare expenses in this -- for those not aware Canada's already pretty swish healthcare system is juiced even more in the province of Quebec, and a dash of education and social safety nets too boot, They go a bit further and say if they are not taking then they might not also have to be sending as much to the federal government (or being compensated for withdrawing from initiatives which is basically the same thing).
unify the income taxes (apparently consumption tax/sales tax already is).
Interprovincial trade. I don't know how much it is presently hamstrung, it seems to reckon there are some barriers it can help with though.
Infrastructure repair and improvement. Also wanting to improve "innovation" because very few object to any of this and someone surely knows someone that hit a pothole some time.
"Sustainable development" mentioned environmental and energy and federal/provincial overlap and thus a desire to sort its own stuff out. That said they are rather coy there for all their strong rhetoric earlier... wonder what toes they want to avoid stepping on.
"The CAQ does not recognize the political legitimacy of the 1982 unilateral patriation of the Constitution, and believes that Quebec’s specific condition within Canada remains unrecognized. A new agreement between Quebec and Canada should therefore culminate in the full constitutional recognition of Quebec as a nation.". I am not sure what that entails within Canada's political setup or what model they are using that might seen or known from elsewhere for it, though the obvious first thing to look at would either be some of France's (overseas) departments or something with the devolved parliaments in the UK's "country of countries".
They have a problem with unilingual judges on the supreme court and want to be able to help select the three that have to come from there, which would be more than other provinces/territories get as appointment is ultimately done by the cabinet.
They want to "reestablish the right of veto" to "protect Quebec’s independence and weigh in shared institutions for future generations", as well as have it such that "The National Assembly (of Quebec) must also be the primary choice for the attribution of residual powers."
They appear to have a long term goal to get rid of the senate and lieutenant governor (I imagine like many places in the commonwealth they are waiting on the queen to kick the bucket before doing anything particular there).

I don't know how likely any of those are to come to pass, how many of those are batshit insane under Canadian legal codes and in general in most places in the world the manifesto for a party is something of a pleasant work of fiction anyway.

** https://www.nbc.ca/content/dam/bnc/en/rates-and-analysis/economic-analysis/economic-news-gdp-qc.pdf (the national bank's statement from February, or about a week ago of time of writing ) reckons GDP exceeds national average and has grown considerably in the last few years. This makes an earlier claim from the first page saying anything that "Quebec’s economy has stalled, and its growth is anemic. Inertia has taken hold" somewhat dubious to me, and while that appears as a monthly report it does mention growth across most things rather than just services which is the dominant sector. On the other hand don't let a thing like numbers get in the way of a rant. If you look at the monthly one then you might be able to make some kind of claim but again it tends to exceed the national average or not take as big a hit as the rest of the country when things trend downwards.
At other points "Quebec’s level of collective wealth is below that of Ontario and the rest of Canada". I don't know if that is a carefully selected metric (not that "collective wealth" is a popular one, or even that well defined, for economists. Don't know if it is a bad translation) or what. Not sure why (actually very sure why but let's pretend) they felt compelled to mention Ontario if they are also below the rest. That said if it is less than Nunavut despite having several hundred times the population then things must be pretty dire.

Interesting reading. I am not sure what I have to compare that to anywhere else I have read up on.


----------



## Noctosphere (Mar 6, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Why is that chilling?
> 
> Also why do you not have a link to their manifesto or key points from it?
> 
> ...


tl;dr, but in short, I have chilling because its the party i was supporting since the beginning
plus, it will be their first mandate, so yea, a wind of change is about to blow on Quebec


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 6, 2018)

"I have chilling" is not really a phrase.

You can have some beers chilling
You can be chilling with some mates
You can have/catch a chill (as in catch a cold)
You can have chills, mainly when something is really good or when something looks like it is about to go very wrong (usually with something like "the creak the machine let out sent a chill up my spine")

Anyway enough grammar lesson.

I covered the main points from their little manifesto -- generally if you are going to share a new and exciting political movement people are going to want to know what it is about, hence my long post covering what probably should have been in the opening one (maybe sans commentary). What of those or that they have otherwise shown a commitment to are of interest to you and why do you reckon it is time for a shakeup? Some of their claims there are pretty weak/do nothing or pretty sketchy (their economy one seems to be at odds with what the national bank say is happening), and I don't know how much of those they are going to be able to pull off. Likewise the move for independence after a fashion is not all that desirable in the eyes of many -- having the world get smaller by having larger and larger countries being the goal of many, seeing countries then split apart troubles that. Is Quebec shat upon so much by the rest of Canada* as to really need it and if so might it also be leaving the rest of the country in the lurch?

*or seemingly just Ontario if that document has its way -- I just spent the last however long hearing about how Brussels (the main place where all the EU stuff goes down) is the bad stuff from many as shorthand, Scotland would use London, various things in the US will use Washington in conjunction with "states rights"... so I tend to pick up on turns of phrase like that.


----------



## Noctosphere (Mar 6, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> "I have chilling" is not really a phrase.
> 
> You can have some beers chilling
> You can be chilling with some mates
> ...


@TheKingy34 has been summoned


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 6, 2018)

Do you not have any interest in having a discussion about their goals, points in the manifesto and the position of things in the world that would make them relevant? Do I assume it is the Quebec types grumbling about nothing important or nothing in particular, and agitating for autonomy of a sort because they are rich isolationist pricks?

Pity if so as it seems like there might be something too all this, with the added bonus of it being a sort of lesser known thing on the world stage so we can avoid the tired old cliches and get onto something worth talking about.


----------

