La Presse reports this morning that, according to a new opinion poll, Gérald Tremblay is more popular now than at any time since he was elected in 2002. 70 percent of respondents said his leadership was “very good” or “good enough,” compared to 60 percent for Stephen Harper and 43 percent for Jean Charest. If a city election were held today, Tremblay would win with 45 percent of the vote, compared to 7 percent for Ville-Marie mayor Benoît Labonté and 6 percent for Projet Montréal leader Richard Bergeron. (More than a third of the electorate, however, is undecided.)
The results are pretty much the same no matter how you break them down. Slighly more people in former suburban municipalities would vote for Tremblay (49 percent) than in the old city (43 percent). About the same proportion of francophones would vote for him (46 percent) as non-francophones (43 percent). What really stands out, though, is that just 8 percent of Montrealers claim to be “very satisfied” with Tremblay’s leadership, which seems to indicate that he’s seen not so much as a great leader as he is a competent caretaker.
Montrealers have long had an apathetic relationship with City Hall. Less than half of us bother to vote for the mayor and our councillors. Once they get into office, it almost seems like we tune out completely. Historically, Montreal’s mayors have enjoyed long terms in office and pretty much free reign to do whatever they want. This was the case for Camillien Houde in the 1930s, 40s and 50s, Jean Drapeau in the 1960s, 70s and 80s and Pierre Bourque in the 1990s. Every so often, there are upsets and popular revolts, like when the Montreal Island Citizen’s Movement was formed in the early 1970s to contest Drapeau, but for the most part people seem to care very little about what goes on down on Notre Dame St.
What gives? In a city where it often seems that everything is political, why are Montrealers so disengaged from municipal politics?
Photo of Gérald Tremblay by Rosana Prada
One comment
Tremblay strikes one as being quite a decent person and an improvement on his predessors. However, he seems to favour “bricolage” over coherent actions situated within agreed policy objectives.
Motor traffic must be reduced on Montreal streets, by how much and over what time period must debated and agreed upon and effective measures defined and implemented (better/cheaper public transport, a coherent and extensive bikepath network, charges to reflect the social cost of car use etc). It also requires standing up to the Ministry of Transport whose objectives for urban motor transport are in direct conflict with those of Montreal and to the Provincial Government in general who is visibly reluctant to allow urban areas the money they need.
I think that Bergeron and Projet Montreal offers a much more coherent approach than does Tremblay as well as more hope for making Montreal an agreeable and innovative city