Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

Jump to main navigationJump to main content

Entry archive:

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Sept. 30, 2009. (CHRIS WATTIE/Reuters)
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Sept. 30, 2009. (CHRIS WATTIE/Reuters)

Andrew Steele

Don't panic! Add to ...

My favourite books when I was in high school were the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series.

The series recounts the satirical and surreal adventures of a puzzled Englishman who escapes Earth after it is destroyed by a race of intergalactic bureaucrats, aided by a friend who is actually an alien (and an interstellar hitchhiker previously stranded on our world.)

The Guide of the title refers to a Wikipedia-esque travel tool that contains everything from drink recipes to survival tips.

The cover of said Guide is emblazoned with the phrase " DON'T PANIC!" in bright, friendly letters as a helpful reminder to keep calm in even the worst circumstances.

Now is a time for Liberals to consult the wisdom of the Guide, because the latest Angus Reid survey could be construed as reason to lose one's mind.

The poll is summarized here with detailed tables here.

The findings are basically that public opinion is more or less back to where it was at the time of the last election.

The topline findings are all within the margin of error of the actual results in 2008.

The underlying trends are more troubling, however.

Quebec shows a significant dip in the Conservative vote vs 2008, but that vote is diffused between the Liberals and Bloc. More troubling is that in nine of the ten CPC held seats in Quebec, only Pontiac saw the Liberals finish in second. This makes it hard to see more than a handful of seats changing hands, and the Liberals getting only some of those.

The situation is dire in Ontario. The Conservatives only won Ontario by five points in 2008, but this survey has them up by fourteen points. Such a result in an election would see the Conservatives pick up an increased seat count, possibly a dozen or more.

By way of history, today's fourteen point margin between Conservative and Liberal is just a hint behind the seventeen point (PCPC 47, LPC 30) difference from the result of 1984. That rout saw the Liberals hold 14 seats to 13 for the NDP and 67 for the Mulroney Tories on a 95 seat base.

In other regions, the changes are all marginal.

A summary of the findings as translated to seats would be this: if an election were held today, the Liberal Party would get fewer seats that they did in 2008, possibly far fewer.

So, what are the Liberals going do?

There is a course of action that involves gnashing of teeth, rending of garments and general furniture smashing by the Liberal caucus and grassroots.

But that will only make the situation worse.

Michael Bliss wrote in today's Globe of the reversal taking place between the Liberals - long the natural governing party - and the Tories - long the natural losing party.

That reversal is not fixed or permanent, but it is a very real threat. The determining factor will be how the Liberals manage the next few weeks, because a panic will lead only to the confirmation of this worrying trend.

Tim Powers recently noted the dangers of the Liberals adopting the dreaded " Tory Syndrome." (A minor quibble would be his attribution of the title to Jeff Simpson when I think it was the academic George Perlin who coined it, but that's beside the point.)

Perlin's theory is elegantly summarized in a paper by Stephen Clarkson and Rachel Gibson that was presented to the CPSA meeting in 2006.

I crib from that paper below, with apologies to the authors who themselves were summarizing Perlin's work and then applying it to the Liberal Party of Canada to explain its traditional dominance of Canadian electoral history.

"In the conclusion to The Tory Syndrome, Perlin summarized the significance of intensive survey research on Progressive Conservative party leaders, members, and backroom operatives by arguing that a complex vicious circle perpetuated losing conditions only periodically interrupted by the Liberals' capacity to defeat themselves. Failure, in effect, bred further failure.

1. Leadership. The Conservative party had a tradition of selecting divisive, understandably inexperienced leaders who tended to perpetuate factionalism rather than mend internal party divisions.

2. Candidates. Generally speaking, when two parties pursue similar basic goals the party which holds the most promise of winning has greater success recruiting people with first-rate credentials. Given that that the political odds tended to be long, the Conservative party did not normally attract highly qualified, ambitious men and women whose motivation for entering politics was to get into cabinet and have a direct effect on policy.

Consequently, predictable areas of parliamentary talent -- the civil service, universities, business and corporations -- were taken over by the dominant party.

3. Caucus. Those Conservatives who did get elected became accustomed to their position on the opposition benches, where they developed a culture of opposition, revelling in criticizing the government in the relative certainty they would never have to implement their own ideas. Approaching all forms of debate in an attacking, destructive manner, the party appeared to lack any ideas of its own, providing the public with little incentive to switch its allegiance.

Single page

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobePolitics

 

In the know

Most popular video »

Highlights

More from The Globe and Mail

Most Popular Stories