I’ll make you an easy prediction.
The latest polls show a trend.
On the one hand, the CAQ is losing ground from one survey to another.
Fatigue has set in and, seeking to recover, the government rushes in all directions, multiplies errors, accelerates its slide.
On the other hand, the PQ is the only one that benefits from the setbacks of the CAQ.
When discontent benefits a single opposition party, it is because people are looking for an alternative to govern.
- Listen to Joseph Facal’s column via Radio QUB :
Obviously, the rise of the PQ is also the return of the national question.
A referendum is still a long way off, but it is no longer such a far-fetched prospect as it was a few years ago.
Obviously we’ll be bringing back the scarecrows from 1980 and 1995. But this time there will be an extra subtlety.
I come to my easy prediction.
One of the oldest rules of politics is to define your opponent before he defines himself.
In plain language, this means undermining your image and your project.
Obviously, for the attack to be believable, it will adapt to the character and the circumstances.
He will be made to appear as an inexperienced amateur, or a dangerous arsonist, or a hypocrite with a hidden agenda, etc.
In addition to the classic attacks on sovereignty, I predict that we will attack Paul St-Pierre Plamondon on the issue of immigration.
The leader of the PQ is, in fact, the only one of the five leaders of the party who openly raises the question of Quebec’s capacity to host if it wants to remain francophone and not import social tensions.
But too frontal an attack would be counterproductive. Your opponents will try to be subtle or think they are.
how do i know Because it has already begun.
I will give you two examples.
A column published in the press of October 4 argued that the notion of “reception capacity” has no “scientific basis”, because it is impossible to arrive at an indisputable figure.
In short, when in doubt, let’s plow ahead. crazy
As if “always more” had a more scientific basis.
As if the difficulty in accurately measuring global warming allows us to deny the problem.
The same strategy, in a cruder version, is used in a pseudo-analysis published in the duty from November 11.
To quote a French demographer (yes!) for whom “talking about reception capacity” means repeating the speeches of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front to “legitimize xenophobia”.
Another campaigner masquerading as an “expert” said without a laugh: “All societies are capable of absorbing immigration, without the need to quantify or quantify it.”
In short, we will attack the PSPP indirectly before going directly if it continues to rise.
We will demonize him even more because it is difficult to answer him on merit when we see the problems piling up, and when we feel that he has a trump card.