Skip to main content
nik nanos

Pollster Nik Nanos.The Globe and Mail

Nik Nanos is The Globe and Mail's pollster and chairman of Nanos Research

With the resignation of former prime minister Stephen Harper, both his advocates and his detractors are quick to advance judgment on his legacy. Some claim his principled stands on issues were a bold new type of leadership. Others assert that his policy changes are being dismantled piece by piece by a new Liberal government. The truth likely lies somewhere in between.

From a political viewpoint, Mr. Harper has made a number of significant contributions to the nature and structure of political discourse in Canada. Along with Peter MacKay, Mr. Harper presided over the merger of the Canadian Alliance/Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives. After years in the political wilderness as a splintered movement, the right united and presented one voice – Stephen Harper's voice – as the distinct counterpart to the Liberals. As the founding leader of the newly reunified Conservative Party, he has a very important place in the Conservative movement in Canada.

Likewise, Mr. Harper presided over the modernization of the Conservative Party of Canada bringing a level of voter identification, targeting, persuasion and getting out the vote that had not been witnessed in Canada. The predecessor party of the Canadian Alliance, the Reform Party had a thesis that one could form a national majority government without significant support in Quebec. In the 2011 election, he largely proved that thesis as a valid one – winning a national majority Conservative government without a major breakthrough in Quebec but by effectively targeting voters.

Related: I tweeted about Harper. Then the Twitter bots attacked

The winning approach of the Conservatives under Mr. Harper was to feed their core voters, continue to feed their core voters and then to feed their core voters again. In their universe, this franchise, while it was successful, was predicated on the assumption of division. Motivate the core and build a winning coalition of interests around it. It was a combination of conservative values and populism. Mr. Harper espoused leaner government while at the same time being willing to aggressively fight big business like Canada's telecommunications companies in the name of consumer populism.

In terms of his legacy with the Conservative movement in Canada, it is hard to deny three election victories, including a majority government. Even for his detractors, the election record, even with his loss in 2015, should not be diminished. Were there people that didn't like his tactics? Of course. Did he still win three elections? Yes.

His political legacy to the Conservatives is for the history books. On the policy front, he may not have had the long-term structural impact he had hoped for by remaking Canada with a permanently more conservative bent.

Perhaps the best way to evaluate his possible legacy is to compare him with another former Progressive Conservative prime minister – Brian Mulroney. Mr. Mulroney's policy accomplishments include a number of signature initiatives which define today's Canada. He conceptualized, persuaded, bet his political future, advanced and signed the Free Trade Agreement with the United States.

Mr. Mulroney introduced an unpopular tax, the Goods and Services Tax, now the HST, that is largely responsible for the fiscal stability of the federation. He concluded an agreement with America on air pollution to address acid rain and help advance a continental environmental vision for the country. The best indicator of legacy is when one's opponents continue to advance the policy path set by a prime minister.

The Liberal Chretien government not only continued with the FTA but also the North American Free Trade Agreement, kept the controversial GST in place and further engaged America in cordial relations on most shared policy files.

What part of the Harper policy legacy will continue? Mr. Harper did preside over and get Canada through the Great Recession and used a proactive energy policy to cushion the blow to the economy. It is still too early to tell but it would seem it is more a dismantling than an embrace from the Trudeau Liberals.

Even though the days are early, the political advantages that Mr. Harper left the Conservative movement will likely loom larger than the broader policy changes. Even with his political legacy, the latest Nanos tracking, which asks Canadians whether they would consider or not consider voting for the Conservatives, has the party near a historic low in the mid-30s. This compared to almost two-of-three Canadians who would consider voting for the Liberals.

Setting aside the Trudeau leadership advantage and the opposition leadership vacancies, the fact that the Conservatives are not on the political menu for the majority of Canadians should give Conservatives pause even as they discuss the Harper legacy.

Interact with The Globe