I understand some trepidation in forcing an election while in the midst of a leadership struggle, but I see this condition as opportunity. The conventional wisdom seems to be that the Harper government will orchestrate its own demise after the spring budget. Given the favorable economic conditions, we can all expect this budget to offer a litany of goodies that the government will use to advantage. Do you allow Harper to dictate the terms, or do you force an election based on the achilles heel? Every poll I have seen shows the Tories score lowest on their environmental policy. I would think the opposition should relish the opportunity to make this issue the central theme in the next election.
Please cite one historical example, wherein a party doesn't receive a bounce in the polls in the aftermath of a leadership race. The spectre of a convention, within the confines of an election campaign is pure gold in terms of momentum. I don't see the leadership as a distraction that can be exploited by Harper, but a great opportunity to frame the Liberal Party in a positive light. So long as the fight keeps an eye on the big picture, Liberals are guaranteed positive coverage for the bulk of the election. Liberal after Liberal hammering the government, in front of a rapt audience, broadcast throughout Canada. I am hard pressed to find the negatives in such a scenario.
Back to the moral angle. Layton has forced the government hand, and how the government reacts should dictate the response. If Layton's proposal to allow ALL opposition parties the power to propose amendments to the current Green Plan is rejected, then Harper effectively rejects the minority concept and this parliament has no realistic hope of achieving anything. Presently, the situation is so ridiculous, we have the unprecedented circumstance where the government filibusters itself. The Liberals must forget about Layton's motivations and vote on the spirit of the motion. Do Liberals have any confidence in this government to deal with climate change? From all the rhetoric the answer is clearly no, so I don't see how the Liberals can ethically prop up the government to stop the NDP motion. If Harper doesn't offer an olive branch on this file, then the Liberals are obligated to vote for the non-confidence on principle. Bring them down, on our terms, with the knowledge that the perceived weakness of a leaderless party is really a hidden blessing.
13 comments:
You can't think of a better strategic situation than a party without a leader forcing an election over an issue on which the public has demonstrated that have very low levels of information and the high potential for manipulation/confusion?
Think harder. There's about a thousand better scenarios.
Please cite one??
You are sure gonna be pissed because Layton is forcing the libs to keep the government propped up.
With the release of the Stern Review Final Report on the Economics of Climate Change, I would say there is much information available to the population and much opportunity for all parties, save the Cons, to spin this.
Steve V:
Sorry, I have to disagree with part of your reasoning here and your conclusion, although I do understand it and the underlying argument. Where I disagree is this notion of a post leadership convention bounce. Those have all taken place outside of a general election framework, this time if the government fell this Thursday half the election would be run with one leader, Graham, then the new leader for the last half, while simultaneously having to unify his/her party behind them after defeating several opponents and having not only to attack the CPC but present an election platform to the public. The amount of complications and probability of significant problems organizationally makes me cringe at this thought for the Liberal party.
I am looking at this mainly from how it would impact the Liberals because if they are not able to mount a decent campaign they are going to hand the CPC another government, hopefully minority but with vote splitting could end up with a bunch of unlikely up the middle results in what were thought to be safe seats majority could occur. Harper is in my view so dangerous that any serious chance of handing him such should be avoided at all costs in my view.
While I agree with you on the importance of this issue, the timing in terms of how it resonates in the public, the fact that the Harper/CPC honeymoon has clearly worn off with the public, and the serious issue of voting to support this government on this issue in a non confidence motion, I think you are assuming things will work better than they will for the Liberals with a leadership campaign ending in the middle of a general election. Since such has never happened before it would be rather difficult to say with any degree of confidence what would/should be the case I would think.
I am hoping that Layton is not so foolish as to do this though. What worries me though is that he might just do this thinking it can help him peel off Liberal voters and seats and replace them, a goal he has clearly been working towards since last fall. My worry is that he can split off enough to create up the middle plurality wins for the CPC without any clear mandate, but because they add up to a majority Harper will treat it as such to the detriment of the Lib and NDP agendas, especially social justice and economic. I also think that the public would agree asking for the official opposition to vote down a minority government before it finishes it's leadership race without an extremely important/motivating issue in the wider public driving the need to topple the government is unreasonable and unfair. Canadians tend to be a fair minded people over all, that is why they gave the Harper CPC government a fair chance to show what they would do with the powers of a government before they started judging his actions with a bit of cynicism/distrust/skepticism.
Basically, I agree with how you describe the circumstances for this, and if the leadership race were over I would agree with you in a heart beat. However, asking Canadians to consider a party for government that still won't know it's own platform according to the leader of the party until the last weeks of a campaign is just asking for trouble. While yes the Liberals would have some framework it is clearly true that each of the main contenders has a differing set of how even the agreed upon priorities need to be ranked let alone on the disagreed ones. It would be open to the charge of policy making on the fly and writing the election platform and its planks on the back of napkins while at the same time figuring out who will lead the party and maybe be PM.
Sorry Steve, you know I respect your views and for the most part have tended to agree with you. While I admire your principled stand and can agree with it from that perspective I have to tell you as an observer of how politics works at the ground level as well as the top this would be a recipe for disaster in the current climate. The heat is not quite there for it, although it is certainly building towards it in my judgment. I just think that making any assumptions on how the post leadership race would go regarding bumps is far less reliable than you appear to be regarding it. That when combined with the automatic issues/problems/flaws that come up both in terms of organizing an election platform and organizing a general election while simultaneously finishing up a leadership race make any such belief a risky proposition.
I only say this because I do want Harper gone, but I want him gone with finality, if that means having to put up with another six months to ensure that I will put up with it and compile the ammunition he and the CP provide in the meantime. This is also better for the environment. We both know the CPC will not do anything substantial regarding climate change an Kyoto. Indeed, quite the opposite, and while I would prefer immediate real action I would prefer to see a near certainty of such in 6-12 months than see the risks of a repeat outcome in the election or worse from vote splitting between Libs and NDP voters making it a mtter of up to four years more.
scotian
I think the important question is how the media will react to the circumstances. I doubt Graham will be the voice, and ever issue will filter through all the major players in the leadership. If the convention is a couple weeks before the general, I see a tide a momentum.
Do we really want a campaign that centers around another GST cut, personal income taxes and other goodies? Harper will call an election when it suits him and I fear Liberals will have a tough sell. We agree to disagree :)
With the money the feds are about to rake in with the trust tax, not to mention the 13% out of the 34% the province of Quebec will get directly, Harper may have enough money to buy off Duceppe.
The pensioners will scream but they are getting income splitting and another $1,000 tax credit so their rev can bill might not change much.
The question for the Liberals becomes that of the GST - do you promise to abolish the trust tax to win pensioner votes and if so do you keep that promise in office?
Your suggestion is as nutty as the Ignatieff "nation" constitutional amendment one.
Let's elect a leader; then let's fight the next election once that leader has had time to take the reins firmly into his or her hands.
Let's not let Gormless Jack Layton determine election strategy for the Liberals: last time he acted strategically, be sided with Harper and helped elect the most reactionary government we have had in Canada.
Discipline, strategic thinking, and timing are crucial for the LPC right now.
"Your suggestion is as nutty as the Ignatieff "nation" constitutional amendment one."
That's harsh :)
Steve V:
He is going to use massive tax cut proposals if we have the election this fall Steve, so I don't really see how that gets avoided, especially since the CPC can point to their GST cut and other cuts (I know they raised it on the lowest income bracket but that is a rather slim reed to base the argument that the CPC will not do significant tax cuts given their clear fixation on them) to show they will if reelected, especially with a majority.
I know the ground will be difficult for the Liberals, I think though it would be even more difficult with an unresolved leadership race for half the election cycle too. I also don't see how Graham is not the campaigning leader in such a circumstance until the new leader is elected since he is the current party leader during the interim.
Also, while yes next spring Harper will have his shiny vote buying budget rolled out there is also going to have been additional anger raised over social policies, economic policies (like what may be coming from seniors regarding the broken income trust promise and the fallout that appears to be coming from it given the market reaction so far), and environmental lack of real policies aside from bowing to the economic preferences of big energy. So there will be increased negatives to go against Harper with and further public record to hit him with showing his once secret agenda is not so secret nowadays and it was exactly what the Liberals tried to warn Canadians about last time out.
So I stand by my original opinion Steve V, this would be very risky and a bad idea at this time in these circumstances in my judgment.
So, how do we think this will play out?
knb
It looks like Layton actually did something that all parties can support.
It does and I hope that actually happens. Something is niggling at me here though and I can't quite place it.
Sorry for the skepticism, but I'm still hoping for the best.
Post a Comment