Modeling Journey

An honest assessment of where all the parties stand after the coalition and budget

I am going to try and take off my partisan hat and put myself in the shoes of each of the opposition parties following the coalition and budget.

Green Party:

The Green Party got a small win during the coalition debate in the sense Elizabeth May got back in the news despite having no seats in parliament. They may have taken a huge loss because their very existence depends on events outside of their control. Perhaps there was some excitement that a Senate seat and cabinet position would be good for the Green Party. This scenario though, points to the very difficult choice for Greens about Elizabeth May as leader. I appreciate this post, and my response is the Green Party today is not the Green Party of Jim Harris under Elizabeth May. The move to the far left (scrapping NAFTA for example) and the frequent endorsements of the Liberals and Stephane Dion make it impossible for any "Progressive Conservative", "Reformer" or Libertarian like myself to support the Green Party today. What was once seen as a party that represented at least the potential to have some of the grassroots excitement that was generated under the Reform Party (that I joined at 14) now seems like nothing more than a special interest group trying to advance Elizabeth May's career and the Liberal Party over their own principles and candidates. I am always up for a beer and I have many friends in the Green Party that I enjoy debating with. In my opinion during the last election Greens such as the candidate in my riding were sold out when May did this deal with Dion. Her comments during the last election about strategic voting in my view were unfair to her own candidates, party and supporters. For example in Newmarket-Aurora, everyone in the community knows it is a two horse race between Liberals and Conservatives. By advocating strategic voting to stop Harper, Glenn Hubbers was held out to try while Green voters were encouraged to back Tim Jones. Tim Jones is a good man, but does not have the environmental credentials and green lifestyle that my friend Glenn Hubbers offers. I think what May did to her candidates such as Hubbers was nothing short of a stabbing in the back. I was always an advocate for including the Greens in the debate for the purpose of enhancing democracy but I think that huge opportunity for Greens was wasted when May seemed to spend more time attacking Harper and defending Dion than promoting her own party's platform to Canadians who are still unfamiliar with what they stand for. I think that also hurt the Green Party because they still haven't broken out of the shell of being an environment only party in the minds of most Canadians. After this unite the left movement, I am buying more into the David Suzuki argument about the Greens. If you are serious about the environment you can probably accomplish more by joining the Conservative Party, Liberal Party or as a single Coalition Party on the left. If May had got her cabinet post, I honestly believe it would have been more likely the Greens would have got tarnished with the Liberal brush as oppose to getting any tangible benefits that would present an argument for the survival of the Green Party. Would Jim Harris or David Chernushenko consider running as a candidate for the Conservatives as a way to combine sound fiscal policy with environmental concern? At this point it is a myth that anyone on the right is considering the Green Party as an option. Greens do not draw their voters from the right and left; they further split the left vote with the NDP, Liberals and in Quebec the Bloc. Even if you stand for proportional representation and democratic reform, how do you advance that goal by supporting a coup using technicalities of a first past the post system and having your leader appointed to the unelected senate?

Greens now face two choices. Keep May as leader because she increased votes in the last election, got into the debates, got serious media coverage but seems committed to herself personally as oppose to the party at large. Otherwise turf her as leader and then what? I am not sure if this party can survive in the long term. I think odds are more likely that we will see a merger of the left than an elected Green in parliament down the road. If May is offered a Senate seat in the future she should take it and never give it up. She has no chance of beating Peter MacKay in Central Nova during an election campaign and it would probably still have to be a monumental achievement for her to win in any other riding. For Greens the question now is are they still relevant? What is our argument to get into the debates next time given that they lost their only seat in parliament? Will proportional representation ever happen regardless of what party controls a majority or minority government? If they cannot come up with good answers, the risk is either Conservative majorities due to vote splitting or a two party first past the post system by merging the left at least among the 3 federalist parties to get that "62% majority" for real.

Greens need to get out of bed with the Liberals and come up with a reason why voters and the media should take them seriously going forward. To do that, there needs to be an honest and aggressive debate on Elizabeth May's leadership and the overall platform and direction of the party following the last election. The Green image I have right now is tree huggers who stand for outdated Kyoto and stopping Harper. As a Conservative, I do not see them as an alternative where perhaps they would have been my second choice under Mr. Jim Harris.

NDP:

The NDP and Jack Layton have clearly become a joke. The coalition for Jack Layton was a huge opportunity to take advantage of Liberal weakness to advance his party's standing. Stephane Dion was desperate to avoid being a question in trivial pursuit as one of the few Liberal leaders never to become Prime Minister. He was willing to sell his soul to the union movement and separatists for the chance to be Prime Minister. The move cost Dion his job, but Layton his credibility. After pushing the coalition for months, Layton finds himself with nothing to show for those efforts except an endorsement Liberals will use against him in the next election campaign. Gone are the dreams of Jack and Olivia in cabinet. So much for the hope that various unions would be running Ottawa. Gone are the days when the NDP can take advantage of weak Liberal leadership, a sponsorship scandal and a record of abstaining. If they couldn't become official opposition under those past scenarios, who seriously thinks it will ever happen now? Jack Layton running to be Prime Minister??? If only he would win over 100 more seats. The NDP cannot even say anymore that they want to make parliament work after Jack Layton declared he would vote against a budget that he had not even seen. In Ontario there is a provincial leadership race going on. You wouldn't know it from the press and it would be impossible to name any of the candidates without the support of Google or the provincial NDP website. Pandering to union interests during the York University strike for leadership purposes showed exactly what the NDP stands for. This is not the party of students, the poor or working class people. It is a party hijacked by the union movement and as a result incapable of expanding past their fringe party status. Even during the pro-coalition rallies, buses of union workers were sent in to counter the public opposition to the coalition with no success. A few years ago Buzz Hargrove was kicked out of the NDP for advocating strategic voting. Will Jack Layton now be kicked out for proving that Buzz was right? After spending months promoting the Liberals as a better alternative to Stephen Harper's Conservatives, how is he now going to stop strategic voting in the next election?

Going forward the NDP, like the Greens might have signed their own death warrant with the coalition. The coalition showed that in the past the leftist parties were splitting the vote and as a result Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party were winning key seats and ultimately the election. Jack Layton has racked up a massive debt for the NDP promoting how great things would be under a Liberal Prime Minister. Elizabeth May has squandered historic media attention and inclusion in the debates to promote Liberals as well. I think if they are serious about Canada being a left wing or progressive country; the best thing both of these parties could do is fold and merge with the Liberals. Obviously from the Conservative perspective that would present a major challenge; but the reality is that both the Greens and NDP are spinning their wheels and are virtually irrelevant today in Canadian politics. Policies like adding a "buy Canadian" provision to the stimulus package, pulling all troops out of Afghanistan immediately or raising taxes on corporations during a recession just highlight their fringe status capped at a maximum of 20% of the total vote. Jack Layton is a nice guy, but it may also be time to consider his leadership. Thomas Mulcair, David Miller, various Western NDP Premiers and Buzz Hargrove will likely be next in line once NDP supporters realize what Jack has done to their party.

Bloc Quebecois:

I don't completely understand Quebec politics and that province in particular is always volatile with their voting intentions. Something that looks firm today, can switch on a dime. At one point it looked like there would be a massive Conservative breakthrough in Quebec. The last election showed that was not the case as Conservatives basically stayed stagnent while provincially the ADQ was basically wiped out as a viable party. Conservatives under Harper who looked to appease Quebec for that majority now seem to be focused on Ontario and BC basically throwing in the towel in Quebec. Liberals who were blown out of Quebec following the sponsorship scandal seem to be making some kind of comeback under Ignatieff in the province. The Bloc that at one time seemed irrelevant still seems capable of holding at least 50 of the provinces 75 seats. Jean Charest who was once the champion of federalism and respected by all parties and premiers now seems to be isolated by his provincial counterparts with bridges burned with the party media reports suggest he might be interested in leading one day. While Gilles Duceppe saw the coalition as a huge win for separation and the Bloc's fortunes in Quebec, ultimately also resulted in a strong showing for Pauline Marois strengthening her leadership in the PQ - the position that ultimately Mr. Duceppe dreams of holding one day. The ADQ are now without a leader. Charest holds a razor thin majority. Marois is now basically the Premier in waiting. Duceppe and the Bloc now find themselves not so much interested in attacking the Conservatives who might be in serious trouble in Quebec but defending their seats against Michael Ignatieff; the Liberal leader who seems to be making a comeback in Quebec at the expense of the Bloc.

The coalition gave the Bloc two key benefits. One, Harper's attacks on the coalition, separation and the Bloc as a party may have hurt his chances and made his seats vulnerable. Second, gone are the days when Liberals and Conservatives can say "all the Bloc can do is oppose". Dion and the Liberals offered Duceppe and his separatist party the chance to serve in the Canadian government. That is proof that they can do more than simply oppose and federalism is weaker because of this power grab by Liberals. On the negative side, the Bloc must now attack a leader and party that no too long ago they endorsed to lead a coalition. If Michael Ignatieff is to become the Prime Minister through an election, that is only possible if he makes a major breakthrough in Quebec. Two months ago it looked like the Bloc would have been able to extort a kings random from the Liberals, bringing back pork to their ridings and province and ultimately strengthening their hand to perhaps 60 seats in the province. Today they will be lucky to hold what they have and will most likely drop seats in the next election.

Canadians are going to go to the polls likely in June or the fall. Quebecors will now have to ask themselves how they want to be represented in the federal parliament. Do they want to be important to the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party? Do they want to continue minority governments by sending a large Bloc of MPs to Ottawa that are disliked by the rest of the country as evidenced in the coalition polls and considered taboo to ever joining the government formally? Will Jean Charest attempt to bridge his differences with Harper or will he continue his attacks that like with Danny Williams will ultimately hurt his leverage with the government of the day in Ottawa? Will Gilles Duceppe lead the BQ in the next election or is retirement a potential option now that his PQ dreams have been smashed? I predict the Bloc will ultimately remain a force in Quebec holding at least a majority of Quebec seats. I also predict that they will drop some seats in the next election, likely around Montreal to the Liberals. Has support for separation actually increased? If not, again the Bloc finds themselves forced to justify their existence in federal politics.

The Liberal Party

I am not sure if the coalition was a blind power grab, or a well executed strategy but either way things have worked out well for the Liberals since the coalition and budget. The first positive for Liberals is that Stephane Dion is gone. Prior to this coalition proposal, he was going to hang around as leader until a new leader was chosen in June. A full leadership race had the potential to divide the party and place further financial pressure as leadership candidates sucked up donations that might have otherwise gone to the Liberal party's campaign budget. When the Liberals began to collapse in the polls, MPs got nervous and decided to part with any kind of grassroots process and appoint Michael Ignatieff as leader through a caucus vote. Once we came back in January, Liberals had a new leader and a fresh start.

Before we look at Michael Ignatieff, let us remember that there are still major issues in the Liberal Party itself. The party remains broke and at a huge financial disadvantage compared to the Conservatives as last year's fundraising numbers demonstrate. The Liberal Party being in debt and still not raising much in fundraising will ultimately have an impact on when the next election is. Second, the lack of a leadership race means that Liberal candidates will not become as well known as perhaps they became during the last contest. Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae will play roles in the new shadow cabinet, but the party did not get a chance to debate any firm policy platforms or a direction for their party. I cannot remember the last time that the Liberals have had any kind of policy convention since losing power. There are also still huge mountains for Liberals to climb regionally in this country. While Ignatieff seems to be making roads in Quebec, the entire West including BC remains a problem for them as does most of the rural ridings. Ontario is a must win for Liberals and so far gains have been modest for them since Iggy became leader.

While there are still some problems in the Liberal Party, Conservatives can no longer underestimate their opponent. Michael Ignatieff is clearly not Stephane Dion and he does not have any baggage from the sponsorship scandal or feuds between Martin and Chretien. He will not run on a carbon tax and there is not an obvious negative route that Conservatives can rely on in the next campaign. He has managed to unite his caucus and stop harmful leaks that in the past have undercut previous Liberal leaders. There is no question that the media attention he has recieved has been Obamalike. So far he has received a free ride from the Conservative Party. He has increased Liberal poll numbers at least during his honeymoon. The economy only helps him gain momentum going forward as Liberals cheerlead for a depression to help their own political fortunes. Ignatieff is much better in press conferences, speeches and during Question Period than Stephane Dion. I do not think he has set Canada on his fire with his leadership at this point, but I do think he represents a credible alternative to the government and unlike Dion it is not hard to picture him as Prime Minister unfortunately.

Michael Ignatieff has been off to a great start but the honeymoon will end. Polls may present an optimal time for him to call an election, but can the Liberal Party afford one? He played the coalition well, but at some point will he look like Dion abstaining and supporting Conservative legislation only to criticize it later? How long can he prop up the government without looking weak? How long can he hope for the economy to get worse before it looks like he is putting his own political interests ahead of the country? When is he going to take firm positions on the issues? He signed a coalition document and was later against it. He was a huge supporter of the Iraq war only to write a New York Times piece saying he was wrong. He called the Israel actions in Lebanon a war crime but in the Gaza conflict changed his position and said Israel was acting in self defense. He first introduced the idea of a carbon tax but is now one of the Liberals pretending Dion and his platform never happened. He praised George W. Bush and supported using “torture” in the war on terror only to now turn around and demand Omar Khadar come home. He told his MPs to support the budget, allowed Newfoundland MPs to oppose the budget and now says he opposes it and that it isn’t working fast enough yet allowed it to pass on several votes. In the past he has supported extending the Afghanistan mission and also Quebec as a nation. Will those positions hold firm against internal Liberal opposition? Leadership is not an easy quality and it will be interesting to see what happens when eventually Mr. Ignatieff is forced to put his vision and positions on the record. At this point it is not clear what he stands for. His biggest asset is that he is not Stephane Dion and in some circles he is not Stephen Harper.

Stephen Harper vs. Michael Ignatieff will be a battle for the ages. There are many similarities between the two men. I suspect that one way or the other we are looking at an election between June and the fall. The impact of the budget and the state of the economy will play a major role in determining who wins that election. Before Liberals are ready though, they must rebuild their finances, improve their standing in Quebec, BC and Ontario, reignite their organization and base, allow Canadians to get to know their new leader and find a platform and vision that redefines Liberalism in Canada. To Ignatieff’s credit he could have just taken power immediately through the coalition. Instead he has decided to do things the hard way – but the right way. Liberals are excited again but should be cautious. There is still a lot of work that must be done before they can realistically expect to get power again through an election campaign.

Conservative Party:

This is a column all by itself and will be my next post.

Thanks for reading…

-Darryl