QS activists met at the end of the week to take stock of the last election campaign.
The results, while not bad, were disappointing.
Throughout this weekend, they pretended not to see what defies the eyes of any honest observer.
Comfortable
They pointed to the taxes proposed by the party which allowed its opponents to paint it as an extremist and disconnected formation.
The problem is quite simply that the measures that QS would like to put in place would only be possible with drastic tax increases.
The activists also greatly deplored that the QS caucus is not equal: seven men, four women. Quite appalling.
But what stands out in QS and that we voluntarily refuse to name?
In June 2022, Léger conducted a poll in which supporters of each party were asked whether they would vote yes or no to sovereignty in a hypothetical referendum.
Among those who decided to vote for QS, 39% would have said yes to sovereignty and 61% would have said no.
In short, more than 60% of QS supporters are federalists. However, QS officially calls itself a sovereignist.
Let’s say you are in a party that pursues an important goal to which you are fundamentally opposed.
You denounce this goal, you try to change it, or you quit.
None of that among the QS federalists.
How to explain that they feel so comfortable in this officially sovereignist formation?
It’s simply because they can see that it’s not a real priority.
QS called itself a sovereignist in its early days because it targeted the PQ.
From that moment and since, the only independent Quebec that would find favor in his eyes would be the one that corresponded in all respects to his vision of the ideal society.
By attaching this project to a bunch of conditions, you make sure to push it back and you can continue to woo the Federalists.
QS knows that its best hunting ground is in Montreal, where the electorate is overwhelmingly federalist.
His about-face on the prohibition of religious symbols for certain workers – first, yes, then no – was the first indicator of his duplicity.
His about-face on the appointment of Amira Elghawaby was another example of his opportunism when it comes to identity.
Portraying Paul St-Pierre Plamondon as an extremist because he raises vital questions about immigration is a third example of QS’s hypocrisy on the national question.
Anyone who is seriously concerned about the French-speaking identity of Quebec cannot fail to put the question of immigration at the top of their concerns.
Imposture
A reader asked me when voters would see how much QS misrepresents.
To see this party stalling at 15% for years and struggling to establish itself outside Montreal, I would say that many Quebecers have already noticed this.