...and things look bleak, at least at the moment, for the coalition.
EKOS has the Conservatives at 44% nationally. Strategic Counsel has them at 45%. Ipsos-Reid has them at 46% (though Aldous quite points out that some of the internal numbers are, to put it mildly, a little confused).
The "smart" buzz now seems to be that Stephen Harper provoked a politicial, constitutional and national unity crisis deliberately to ensure himself a majority government sometime in the new year. And while the public is more divided than the topline voting preference numbers would suggest (and, more importantly, pundits are avowing that the PM's behaviour means his chances of winning a majority are nil), the Conservatives are benefiting from Canadians "rallying to the flag" and by extension, the government of the day. As noted in an earlier post, Harper is set, in some circles at least, to be elevated once again to the status of Greatest Political Mind in Canadian History.
Do I buy it?
Yes and no. At the moment, the Conservative media assault has, once again, been successful (Harper's brtual treatment of the media at the beginning of his first mandate has paid off spectacularly, as the national press corps has managed to develop the political equivalent of Stockhold Syndrome). This success is compounded by the impotence of a Liberal Party that, it seems, continues to ignore the threat posed to its existence by ongoing internal divisions. All this is the conventional wisdom. However, it doesn't mean there isn't a way out.
What unconventional wisdom can I offer to rescue progressives from the mess we find ourselves in?
a) Pass the Budget. It's time, I think, for the coalition to take the high road. It seems clear that Harper desperately wants the House to fall in the New Year. Don't let it. Call the Prime Minister's bluff. Pass whatever godawful stimulus package he presents, in the name of national unity. (If it's really egregious, vote it down and run like hell with it.)
b) Ditch the Bloc- Nicely. The Bloc is doing no favours to the Liberals and New Democrats outside Quebec. The coalition must either come up with a rhetorical strategy that adequatly convinces Canadians of the Bloc's good intentions, or part ways, amicably. This ties in with the need to:
c) Replace Dion - But Fairly. I have supported Stephan Dion from before anyone gave him a chance. But his manifold talents are lost on the media, the public, his caucus, and occasionally himself. So, drastic times call for drastic measures - but fair measures that give the Liberal base a chance for involvement. This means a very speedy convention process, or some sort of one-person, one-vote ballot, in early January. Do it all online - it could be cool and exciting and 21st Century! And whoever loses has to suck it up (I think, sadly, this is the most unlikely of my suggestions to actually come off).
d) Up the Ante with the NDP (and the Greens). Whoever the new LPC leader, the formal coalition with the NDP needs to continue. Despite the polemics of the National Post, Canadians are not particularly afraid of the NDP (and Harper's inflammatory rhetoric about the Bloc may succeed in legitimizng the New Democrats even more in the eyes of some voters). In a more or less permanent fashion, progressives in Canada must - I repeat, must - unite.
e) Develop a "Regular Joe" Platform. The LPC-NDP coalition needs to develop a common framework of policy that cuts across the traditional conservative-liberal-socialist spectrum. The contents of said platform are best left to another post - but they have to speak to the messy anxieties of ordinary people. That means unconventional or unexpected juxtapositions and amalgams of policies or ideas.
f) Use the Moment. Uniting progressives and developing an unconventional platform is going to embolden a lot of people, and attract new volunteers and recruits to the progressive front (ideally in Obama-esque proportions). A strong volunteer system needs to be in place to handle them, to solicit donations, and do all the cool stuff that, lo and behold, won the Democrats the White House. So, David Axelrod, and a minion, had better get called up the Great White North ASAP - for seminars, a pep talk, and the phone number of a good website designer.
Is this a lot to ask? In our poor benighted country, perhaps. It will take work. The alternative is to:
g) Let the Conservatives win a majority. Allow them to take power, destroy the bureaucracy, politicize every quasigovernmental agency they can, gut the social safety net, obliviate our world standing, and use the bully pulpit to rule for at least a decade. I guarantee Canadians will be sick of them by then. But will there be any Canada left?
04 December 2008
The polls are in...
28 November 2008
King-Byng v2.0: Black Friday?
In a crisis, you are always in danger of, to use an apt BBC term, "being overtaken by events."
The Conservatives have blinked. Except they haven't. The pundits are furious. The Opposition parties have snapped. Or have regained a sense of purpose. Or something.
Remember that roulette ball? It's up in the air at the moment, and no one knows where it's going to land. My bet is on a number Stephen Harper likes - but hope springs eternal in the human breast.
27 November 2008
More on King-Byng v2.0
Aldous, this is certainly is a cunning move - "crafty" and "diabolical" are synonyms being tossed about by the commentariat - but there's an old adage that might also apply to Stephen Harper: he's so sharp he's liable to cut himself.
I can't think that internal polling is anything but rosy for the Tories, given their incumbency and the weakness of the Liberals. Still, this imbroglio brings to mind a line from Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida: Ulysses, after bemoaning the disorder among the Greek champions, declaims that "to end a tale of length / Troy in our weakness stands, not in her strength."
If October's election is rerun with all its variables unchanged, the Conservatives will win a majority. However, a number of things have changed in the last six weeks (really, has it been that long?): the severity of the economic crisis, the government's own stance on deficit spending, the field of Liberal leadership candidates (considerably smaller than it was on October 15th) and most importantly, the sense of anxiety in the Canadian public, and the sense of urgency, if press reports are to be believed, within the opposition parties themselves. The Conservatives may be overconfident: only a third of the country voted for the turkeys the last time around.
Crisis has a funny way of concentrating the mind. If the Liberals immediately replace Dion (Pat Martin's report of Jean Chretien attempting to broker a deal between the leadership candidates is intriguing) and the New Democrats rediscover their progressive cojones, a coalition might have a fighting chance. If Paul Wells is right and the NDP, like the Liberals, are broke, then there might be a lot of motivation for cooperation. If there's an election? Look for a formal coalition betweent the NDP and Liberals, and plenty of rhetoric about national unity in the face of catastrophe. Oh, and an awful lot of kind words for Jean Charest.
Or, Harper could back down. His game plan was supposed to be not just incrementalist, but soporific - he has tried to convince Canadians of his and his party's moderation, despite various nasty smells (Chuck Cadman, Zaccardelli, lazy artists, etc etc) dispelled as much as possible by a compliant media. But this maneuvre stinks so badly that it's hard to ignore. Much rests on each party's assessment of risk versus opportunity in this situation. The key question, of course, is how public opinion is shaped in terms of apportioning blame. I have to say that, based on the last two elections, I'm not optimistic on that score. But on the other hand, a roulette wheel on a cruise ship in these stormy waters isn't always going to land in the black.
Finally, Aldous, I commend you for getting through a post on this subject without swearing. Happy Thanksgiving - let's hope there's no war between India and Pakistan!
King-Byng v2.0 Update
Following Luke's post yesterday, early indications are that the opposition parties will vote the "fiscal update" down, sending Parliament either towards dissolution or towards some sort of governing coalition/liberal minority government (with emphasis on minority).
Press reaction? Perhaps the Globe could be beginning to regret its ridiculous decision to endorse the Tories in October. Even Canwest/National Post is ambivalent; some columnists are taken aback (and here) while another loves it. Andrew Coyne is very happy... no surprise there.
My two cents: I don't have much grasp on the tactics at play here, but for what it's worth here's my take. This is a cunning move for Harper, but one that would come back to haunt him if indeed the opposition parties stiffen up and reject the measure. That leads me to suspect that the Tories have internal polling numbers that show that they are again in a position to win a majority, and some sort of strategy in their back pockets to put the blame for another election squarely on the shoulders of the Liberals. If they didn't think that they would come off well in an election, they would not be making this gamble. As one Post column points out, the Conservatives are only seeing upside right now. But if the motion is defeated and the opposition parties can govern together for a few months or half a year, it could turn out to be a bad mistake.
I also can't let this go without venting about how utterly wretched this plan is. $30-million to provide well over the majority of the major parties' revenues? That's peanuts, and even if the Tories were being sincere about this simple fiscal prudence, their obsession with balanced budgets at a time of deepening recession is highly troubling.
We get party politics on the cheap in Canada. Tying party finances at least partially to their electoral success ensures that funding is related at least loosely to what counts for merit in representative democratic politics: popularity. A party's funding, and therefore its electoral fortunes, should not depend solely on its fundraising capability, since this depends on a whole lot of factors completely unrelated to ideas, policies, or governing competence.
