There are governments that win a solid majority and there are governments that garner a narrow one. In the case of a narrow majority, a government should get worried when the political winds shift against it over a long period of time.
Jean Charest's government is in that category.
On a political level, the government's extreme vulnerability is as obvious as Stephen Harper's obsession to control everything. Polls show a dissatisfaction rate with the Charest government nearing the 80-per-cent mark with his support among francophone voters hovering around 20 per cent.
The premier's continued refusal to set up a public inquiry into mounting allegations of corruption in the construction industry has caused the public to think that he's hiding something. Opposition parties are now asking for an even broader inquiry into suspicions of illegal financing of the Liberal Party itself.
Even the radical move to expel family minister Tony Tomassi from the cabinet and caucus was seen more as an admission that ethics might indeed be shaky in this government than as an action simply to remove a rotten apple.
The government's budget has also provoked general anger among Quebecers, and prompted a number of protests. On Monday, a Léger Marketing/Le Devoir poll showed that an impressive 72 per cent of respondents oppose the idea of a $25-per-visit health user fee and a $200 annual health tax.
But the most devastating poll finding for Charest was that 62 per cent of Quebecers - including 65 per cent of Parti Québécois supporters - hope that Ottawa would use the Canada Health Act to strike down the fees. Faced with that opposition, Charest said this week that the fees are still up for debate, and no decision had been made.
So politically speaking, this government, even with its majority, is highly vulnerable.
Liberals can hope that their fortunes could still turn around since no election is in sight before 2012 or 2013. But the government majority is somewhat fragile.
With Tomassi sitting as an independent, the Liberal Party has 66 seats out of 125. The PQ has 50, the ADQ has four, Québec solidaire has one. There are two other independent MNAs, and one riding, Vachon, is vacant.
Since it takes 63 seats to have a bare majority, if the Liberals lose four MNAs over the next two to three years, their majority would be gone. Considering Tomassi likely would vote with the Liberals if he doesn't quit altogether, the government would have to lose five MNAs for it to be in danger of falling.
Given that Vachon was easily won by the PQ in 2008 with a majority of 4,447 votes, it's a safe bet that the Liberals won't win this riding when the by-election is held.
But the difference between now and 2003, when it had its first majority, is that this government is already into its third mandate, it's highly unpopular and it's being continually wounded by allegations of influence-peddling and illegal party financing, with one minister already fired.
Should the dissatisfaction rate remain high and troubling allegations continue to pile up, there is a risk that other Liberal MNAs or ministers might get in trouble, cross the floor, sit as independents for whatever reason, or simply be tempted to bail out before the general election.
Losing more than three seats over the remainder of the mandate is something this government could not afford to do.
Because if it ever comes to that, chances are an election would be called before the end of this term, which would likely be provoked by a non-confidence motion with the Liberals obviously in deep trouble.
This government therefore wants to make sure that it doesn't lose four seats before the next election.
In these very difficult political times, that might prove harder to achieve than in more normal times, even with the premier's surprise promise yesterday of a code of ethics for MNAs before the summer.
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/Could+Liberals+majority+danger/3025392/story.html#ixzz0nut64JJT