A little over a year after obtaining a super-majority in the National Assembly, the Coalition Avenir Québec suddenly finds itself in second place in voting intentions. This is obviously not something definitive, but it is not trivial either for the wear and tear of power to manifest itself so early in a second mandate.
And as misfortune never comes alone, it comes at the decisive moment of negotiations with public sector employees when a strong majority of Quebecers believe that it is the unions who are right — which does not happen often.
And, to make matters worse, one of the strongest ministers in the government, Finance Minister Eric Girard, thought he was doing a good job by announcing a subsidy of between $5 and $7 million to a subsidiary of Quebecor to make come the Los Angeles Kings to Quebec.
It wouldn’t be the first time that a populist government has noticed that the things that worked before end up boring the electorate. The ways of acting that once made people popular end up turning against their authors. And the symbol of this is paying millions for unimportant matches when you don’t have enough money to fund food banks.
But what’s most troubling is that no one with enough influence in the Prime Minister’s Office or in the government apparatus seems to have raised their hand to say that maybe this wasn’t a good idea.
This is added to the reversals on the third link, the 30% increase in the salaries of deputies, the stinginess of the offers to state employees, the squabbles with the mayors… all this ends up using up the great capital of sympathy which benefited the government.
No wonder, then, that voters who left the Parti Québécois for the CAQ are returning home. This week’s poll clearly shows this and the solid performance of Paul St-Pierre Plamondon also has something to do with it.
Normally, when a government becomes unpopular, it is the official opposition — in our parliamentary system, it is the “government in waiting” — that benefits.
But voters see no reason to bring the Quebec Liberal Party out of purgatory, especially since it has not chosen a new leader, especially since no one seems interested in becoming one.
With the Liberals out of the picture for a while longer, the PQ is the only other political party to have already formed a government. Voters still remember many of his accomplishments, and there are people in this party who have already governed. In the circumstances, even with a reduced caucus of four MPs, it is the PQ which is increasingly seen as the government in waiting.
But while the PQ is on the rise, the sovereignist option does not move the needle, even among the youngest voters. However, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon was elected leader of the PQ by promising to hold a referendum on sovereignty in the first mandate of his government.
The PQ leader affirms that he is transparent on the issue and that he is not going to go back on this promise to hold a referendum. But it’s still a thorn in the side.
Jean Charest won more than one electoral campaign by accusing the PQ of wanting to hold another referendum. François Legault is starting to do the same.
In any case, the opposition will also come from within the PQ family. Many PQ members believe that we should not risk a third defeat in a referendum on sovereignty, which would have the effect of dealing a fatal blow to the sovereignist option itself.
This is what Prime Ministers Lucien Bouchard and Bernard Landry say, each in their time. As for Pauline Marois, the referendum was indeed on the PQ’s program, but she never judged that the moment was opportune.
Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon would do well to clarify this situation well before the election campaign, and it is a safe bet that few people in his party will hold it against him if this confirms the place of the PQ as the main alternative to the CAQ.
A word about the Pallas Data survey published this week. First, let’s be happy that a new polling firm is publishing its results. But it must be said that these are telephone surveys without human intervention, commonly called “robocalls”.
These are not bad polls, but they are mainly used to sense changes in trends in situations where public opinion is volatile, such as during primary elections in the United States. But this is not ideal for a very detailed analysis.
Because when we look at the results of a survey, it is also useful to have a little more methodological information such as the number of interviews started and the number of interviews completed. Which would help validate the sample and results.
That said, its results are similar to internal polls carried out by the parties.