Competing visions of Parliament

Share

What we see this fall in federal politics is an interplay between three visions of what Canada's current Parliament is all about.

Stephen Harper apparently believes (contrary to the raw mathematics of the October, 2008, outcome) that he personally received a sort of Napoleonic, plebiscitaire mandate from the electorate a year ago. And so, like Joe Clark and Paul Martin before him, this minority Prime Minister governs through a series of ultimatums to the majority in the House of Commons. This fall he tried to turn this into a virtue with the slogan "no backroom deals" - which is populist neo-con double-speak for "I don't have to work with anyone or listen to anyone." It's been working for him so far - until the next blunder.

Jack Layton's vision used to be that 163 Members of Parliament were elected from parties who claim to be progressive or centrist, versus 143 Conservatives. We are coming up on the first anniversary of Layton's attempt to have the government of Canada reflect that fact. Having been thwarted in this by the current leadership team in the Liberal Party, Layton and the New Democrats have reverted to type, and are seeking to achieve progress file-by-file (as Layton did on Toronto city council and in the Canadian Federation of Municipalities) in a Parliament where, you would think, progressives might have some leverage over a government dependent on them to survive.

Michael Ignatieff's vision is that it is a theatrical backdrop for a Kennedy/Trudeau-esque march to power. His team were pretty clear on and off the record a bit less than a year ago about how they felt things should unfold, and they have been sticking closely to their game plan since. Whatever issues might be before the country, they wanted peace and quiet last winter, until Ignatieff could get his interim leadership confirmed at a Liberal convention. They would then toy with a spring election window. But more likely, they would use the spring and summer to assemble an election budget, a slate and a platform. And then the Liberals would call an election this fall (as they felt they were entitled to do) and collect the majority mandate waiting to be plucked from a grateful public, surfing on the wave of a political honeymoon for their new leader.

How are things working out?

For Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative government, not so badly. The Prime Minister has been heard to say he enjoys the challenges of governing and would like to focus on them. To date, he's getting his wish. This government's fiscal time bomb of deep, foolish and unsustainable tax cuts combined with spending increases is in its early chickens-have-not-come-home-to-roost-yet phase. And politically, overall, the blue team has reason to take heart in the trend of events.

For Jack Layton and the New Democrats, it's a mixed bag. The Prime Minister's Napoleonic style leaves less room for the kind of cooperative government Layton was used to in municipal politics. But the government can count. It did not want to run the risk of being blamed for an election this fall. And so it has offered a small step forward for the unemployed that seems well-targeted to attract grudging support from the New Democrats - who may therefore have a little more to point to in gains this fall than the hapless Liberals, who traded their votes for nothing for three years.

As for the red team, within the frame they live in they are doing some things well this fall. The advertising they are broadcasting is an effective way to speak over the heads of the usual intermediaries in federal politics, and to take their case directly to Canadians. The policy speeches Michael Ignatieff has been delivering are what all our political leaders owe the country - an attempt to set out a philosophical and policy framework on the big issues, whether or not those issues are leading the news that day.

Still, the red folks seem to have the most to worry about, so far.

To begin, as only one of three opposition parties, the Liberals aren't entitled to call elections when they feel it is convenient for themselves to do so. Michael Ignatieff therefore looked a little silly proclaiming the end of the government earlier this fall. Second, the Liberals aren't working from the base of a solid honeymoon for their new leader. On the contrary, on most of the evidence, Mr. Ignatieff isn't doing any better than Stephane Dion did at the same point in his leadership.

To discount this profoundly discouraging fact, Liberals need to believe that other parties are at the top of their political potential, while Mr. Ignatieff and his party are at the bottom of theirs, with plenty of "headroom" to grow during an election campaign if only they could get to one.

That could be true. Or it could be true that there is much less "headroom" for this latest version of the Liberal Party than it hopes, because the case they are very properly putting before the people of Canada this fall is riddled with contradictions and incongruities that don't add up and won't ever add up.

We are hearing a Laytonesque pitch for "green jobs" as the centerpiece of an economic development strategy. From a Liberal Leader who travelled to Calgary as quickly as he could to report that he favours Stephen Harper's policy of uncontrolled, limitless development of Canada's tar sands, whatever the environmental consequences.

We are hearing about human rights and a return to Canada's traditional role in the world. From a tactically repentant apologist for George Bush's use of torture, and a tactically repentant cheerleader for George Bush's Iraq war.

We are hearing a commitment to fiscal responsibility and to the value of citizens contributing taxes in return for the civilization we wish for ourselves and for all. From a Liberal Leader who simultaneously commits to maintain Stephen Harper's corporate and other tax cuts - which have embedded a permanent structural deficit into the nation's finances (temporarily masked, at the time, by resource revenues). Which means no funds for whatever programs the Liberals choose to re-promise, once again, in Red Book Version 7. (Andrew Steele made this point on this site yesterday. It is well taken - and also to be found in the NDP's 2008 platform).

Many of these incongruities and contradictions represent an attempt by Mr. Ignatieff to compete with Mr. Harper for moderate conservative voters - people like Mr. Ignatieff himself. While hoping that more progressive Canadians can be blackmailed into voting Liberal on the argument that only Mr. Ignatieff can replace Mr. Harper.

That is an approach that may fail at both ends. Progressive voters may well remain clear in their minds that they do not want to vote for a conservative, whatever the party colour. Conservative voters may well decide to continue to vote for the real thing.

The available entrails so far suggest that is exactly what is happening. Here is how it's working out so far (as reported on the useful site ThreeHundredEight.com, which summarizes Canadian public domain polls in a single, summary table):

This suggests, overall, that the Conservative government is holding on to its core support with, possibly, a slight trend towards more strength within its range.

It suggests (contrary to many breathlessly enthusiastic reports) basically steady support for the New Democrats at their new, doubled level of support under their present leader.

And it suggests a slow, steady leak since June for the view that this Parliament is a prop for a can't-fail red team march to power.

Which isn't coming together, so far, despite some best efforts.