It was a grey Monday evening, October 1, when all good Quebeckers went to the polls and voted for their new premier and member of the National Assembly of Quebec.
While there was no major issue in this election, no mention of sovereignty, no huge fiasco's or fraud, and nothing but smooth sailing for the past few years, the result was an historic change in government.
One would think, with such a swing to the right, the left-leaning Liberals had done a horrible job and people were tired of them. This would in turn have sparked a huge voter turnout in the hopes of removing the ruling party. However, the Quebec populace was almost complacent, as only 67% of the population even bothered to get out to the polls.
What is most surprising is that the Liberals, who by all accounts, had done a reasonable job of governing, earned a paltry 31 seats and are now the official opposition to a majority CAQ government.
In most provincial or federal elections, voter turnout is highest when there are major issues in how the ruling party had managed their portfolio the previous 4 or so years. Rarely, does low voter turnout result in a switch of governments and more rare even in electing a new majority government, instead of a close vote and a minority (as the experts all predicted).
Pundits felt that the Liberals had done a decent job, but had not really done anything new or interesting to keep their voter base. The threat of separation is all but dead - for the moment - as the once powerful PQ party is now in 4th place and may lose their party status.
But why such a massive change to the newly formed and - dare I say it - rookie party. Why did such a swing result in a majority, rather than the expected minority?
Well it seems that the CAQ used language as their main platform. No real financial promises - but direct plans and fresh ideas - unlike the Liberals who promised to keep the status quo regarding volume of immigration but to create multi million dollar programs to help them learn French.
The CAQ, under businessman François Legault, used immigration and fear as their main weapon. They assured Quebeckers that immigration would be slowed to a crawl, and that all new immigrants, be them refugees, legal immigrants or otherwise, would be language tested within 3 years.
In essence, they used the populations anti-illegal immigration concerns to create an issue which really doesn't exist. This issue took hold, like a smouldering ember in a pile of leaves, and the Liberals allowed it to become a platform issue.
The Liberals, under Philippe Couillard, actually adjusted their own platform to much the opposite of the CAQ. They assured the voters that immigration was necessary, and that they would pay for language training for any immigrants who required it. This actually got under the skin of many voters. Of those I spoke to, many asked "why should our taxes pay for an immigrant to learn French?"
Other - more mainstream issues - which should have been front and centre, such as educational and seniors, ended up being the frosting on the cake. The CAQ said they would create a single school tax rate - they declined to say if it would be higher or lower than the current 2 system rates. (I'd put a bet on higher). They claimed they would replace school boards with service centres, create more space for pre-kindergarten students, regular and continuous training for teachers, and hire specialists.
The Libs countered with a bit of an out-dated rhetoric about updating the infrastructure, lower day care costs for 4 years olds, and intensive English lessons for immersion grade 6 students. (oops - bet that didn't go over well with the pure-laine Quebeçois).
But still - all those issues are really minor. Every election in recent memory, candidates talk about education, health care and taxes, this is nothing new. So why the change and why so radical?
I personally see it as a catch-all election. Everything the CAQ said they could do, was countered by the Liberals offering their version of a better plan. The CAQ offered concrete numbers, guarantees and a number of promises in every sector. Education, language, immigration, health care all had concise plans, while the Liberals continued to utter only the 'safe' options, hoping that the lack of major issues would carry them to another 4 years.
I would also tend to say that the CAQ took a page from the Rob Ford election campaign and aimed at the fears of Quebeckers over immigration and language. Rob Ford is a robust individual and like him or hate him (there is very little middle ground in Ontario), he is a presence at all times. I wouldn't say François Legault is as robust as Ford, but he is an expert marketer, a shrewd businessman with a solid financial background. People see him as a thoughtful, educated, smart businessman and gave him 4 years to prove it.
Perhaps people felt like a vote for the CAQ would spark governments to see that the populace will not accept 'the same old thing' anymore, and that they want to see improvements. Personally I think change, for the sake of change, is rarely a good idea.
We have 4 years to find out!
While there was no major issue in this election, no mention of sovereignty, no huge fiasco's or fraud, and nothing but smooth sailing for the past few years, the result was an historic change in government.
One would think, with such a swing to the right, the left-leaning Liberals had done a horrible job and people were tired of them. This would in turn have sparked a huge voter turnout in the hopes of removing the ruling party. However, the Quebec populace was almost complacent, as only 67% of the population even bothered to get out to the polls.
What is most surprising is that the Liberals, who by all accounts, had done a reasonable job of governing, earned a paltry 31 seats and are now the official opposition to a majority CAQ government.
In most provincial or federal elections, voter turnout is highest when there are major issues in how the ruling party had managed their portfolio the previous 4 or so years. Rarely, does low voter turnout result in a switch of governments and more rare even in electing a new majority government, instead of a close vote and a minority (as the experts all predicted).
Pundits felt that the Liberals had done a decent job, but had not really done anything new or interesting to keep their voter base. The threat of separation is all but dead - for the moment - as the once powerful PQ party is now in 4th place and may lose their party status.
But why such a massive change to the newly formed and - dare I say it - rookie party. Why did such a swing result in a majority, rather than the expected minority?
Well it seems that the CAQ used language as their main platform. No real financial promises - but direct plans and fresh ideas - unlike the Liberals who promised to keep the status quo regarding volume of immigration but to create multi million dollar programs to help them learn French.
 |
| Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons, Photo by: Jimmy Hamelin, Coalition pour l'avenir du Québec |
In essence, they used the populations anti-illegal immigration concerns to create an issue which really doesn't exist. This issue took hold, like a smouldering ember in a pile of leaves, and the Liberals allowed it to become a platform issue.
The Liberals, under Philippe Couillard, actually adjusted their own platform to much the opposite of the CAQ. They assured the voters that immigration was necessary, and that they would pay for language training for any immigrants who required it. This actually got under the skin of many voters. Of those I spoke to, many asked "why should our taxes pay for an immigrant to learn French?"
 |
| Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons, By Asclepias CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) |
Other - more mainstream issues - which should have been front and centre, such as educational and seniors, ended up being the frosting on the cake. The CAQ said they would create a single school tax rate - they declined to say if it would be higher or lower than the current 2 system rates. (I'd put a bet on higher). They claimed they would replace school boards with service centres, create more space for pre-kindergarten students, regular and continuous training for teachers, and hire specialists.
The Libs countered with a bit of an out-dated rhetoric about updating the infrastructure, lower day care costs for 4 years olds, and intensive English lessons for immersion grade 6 students. (oops - bet that didn't go over well with the pure-laine Quebeçois).
But still - all those issues are really minor. Every election in recent memory, candidates talk about education, health care and taxes, this is nothing new. So why the change and why so radical?
I personally see it as a catch-all election. Everything the CAQ said they could do, was countered by the Liberals offering their version of a better plan. The CAQ offered concrete numbers, guarantees and a number of promises in every sector. Education, language, immigration, health care all had concise plans, while the Liberals continued to utter only the 'safe' options, hoping that the lack of major issues would carry them to another 4 years.
I would also tend to say that the CAQ took a page from the Rob Ford election campaign and aimed at the fears of Quebeckers over immigration and language. Rob Ford is a robust individual and like him or hate him (there is very little middle ground in Ontario), he is a presence at all times. I wouldn't say François Legault is as robust as Ford, but he is an expert marketer, a shrewd businessman with a solid financial background. People see him as a thoughtful, educated, smart businessman and gave him 4 years to prove it.
Perhaps people felt like a vote for the CAQ would spark governments to see that the populace will not accept 'the same old thing' anymore, and that they want to see improvements. Personally I think change, for the sake of change, is rarely a good idea.
We have 4 years to find out!
Comments
Post a Comment