It was the opposite of “polarization”.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
Dominique Anglade accused François Legault of copying his commitment to send a check for $2,000 to seniors. We were far from the ideological confrontation…
It was like the slow start to the election campaign, with parties stepping on each other’s toes promising checks.
For the first time, five parties collect at least some 10% of voting intentions and will participate in the leaders’ debate. It’s hard to cover. Parties can stick to their announcement of the day, at the risk of being relegated to a footnote in the news. Or they can react to the topic of the day, at the risk of straying from their game plan.
They say that an election campaign is a marathon, but with their delay, the Liberals, PQ, Solidarity and Conservatives had to start with a sprint. At the end of August, there was a lack of spectators. Public interest is expected to grow after Labor Day.
To attract attention, they will have to stand out more. Their promises on the cost of living are more patronage than ideological. And more for taxpayers than citizens.
When you have to pull out the excellent tax simulator from the Université de Sherbrooke, it’s because the difference isn’t so clear. But there is indeed one. The Caquists and the Liberals would delay the return to a balanced budget or increase the debt to increase purchasing power, with the risk of adding fuel to the fire of inflation. Slight nuance, the Liberals would like to make the rich pay a little more (incomes over $300,000).
As for the Conservatives, they would eliminate income tax for income between $15,700 and $20,000. This benefits everyone equally, although in terms of proportion of income, young people will feel it more. This measure is the most ideological when it is placed in its context: that of a party that wants to reduce the size of the state, even if it means weakening the social safety net.
The PQ and solidarity opt for another path. Their assistance targets those who really need it — they would notably double the refundable tax credit for people with medium or low incomes.
This outbidding, however, leads the party of Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois into unsuspected territory. It would suspend sales taxes, which would benefit wealthy people more. Nothing very supportive…
Another proof that by aiming more at the wallet than the imagination, the parties fall into the game of François Legault. They make the debate less exciting and divisive. This usually benefits the point guard.
Here’s a look at the first week of each party.
QP
The Parti Québécois started the campaign on its own, talking about language and independence. Paul St-Pierre Plamondon reminds us that there is only one party dedicated first and foremost to these causes. If he can make this election a referendum on the survival of the PQ, he will consolidate valuable support. The advance of the CAQ could convince voters to give it another chance – the nationalists no longer fear the election of the Liberals.
QS
Québec solidaire is preparing to distinguish itself from its rivals. On Sunday, the party presents its climate plan. How can we reduce greenhouse gases by 55% by 2030 when the efforts made over the past three decades have only allowed a modest reduction of 3%? And what will the cost be? To be credible, the answers must be precise and quantified.
QLP
The Liberals had a rough start to the campaign. I don’t remember seeing a leader walk around in a riding where she didn’t have a candidate. Mme Anglade is good at the microphone, but few people come to hear him and his recruitment of candidates is deficient. It is urgent to stand out with a strong announcement or a prestigious candidacy.
CAQ
François Legault has the challenge of any outgoing prime minister: to renew his ideas. His slogan “Let’s continue” shows that the polls give him confidence. But there are no great ideas this year, especially in education. It is as if he wanted to take up themes from his first term, some of which were stolen from him by the pandemic.
PCQ
As usual, the Conservative leader has excelled in the art of calming his critics while scathing his activists in the same sentence. The worst example: “We don’t need bodyguards because the people are with us,” he said in reference to threats against his opponents.
He thus lets it be understood that the people speak with one voice and that they support the Conservative Party. And he acts as if the people who make threats are on the good side, that of the people.
The campaign began in some trouble. But it was all the same far preferable to this great skid.