Modeling Journey

Less than six weeks away from the Liberal Party's one day opportunity to table a motion of non-confidence in the incompetent Harper government, it is interesting (and very very educational) to contrast the actions now being taken by Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.

Harper has been using the summer to frame the next election, should the Liberals finally decide not to prop up the Tories, while Ignatieff seems to have spent his summer munching hot dogs at countless BBQs across the country.

Which man is best prepared for September 30?

Let's look at what Ignatieff has been doing; this is how one of Ignatieff's senior advisors mistakenly describes what is happening right now:

"It's been a summer of criticism for Ignatieff and his team – a sharp turn from the largely positive reviews they got in the months after the party installed him as leader last December. Ignatieff arrived in the job the easy way – unchallenged, when potential rivals pulled out of the contest – and seemed to be coasting to prime-minister-in-waiting status until around June.

But then a confidence vote rolled round – a chance to defeat Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government – and Ignatieff seemed to stumble, issuing an "ultimatum without conditions," as Harper famously dismissed it.

Since then, the Liberals seem to have hit a plateau in the polls. Ignatieff has been criticized for being invisible to the national media, and anonymous partisans have grumbled about the dearth of policy, visibility and organizational expertise.

On the question of Ignatieff's apparent invisibility, Davey just shakes his head.

"I've seen this movie before, and what happens in the summer is that everyone goes away and there's nobody writing stories. There's no national media following people. You focus on regional media."

He points out that earlier this month the Liberal leader was all over Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and New Brunswick, drawing good crowds."

What has Harper been doing?

To understand his strategy, you to focus on one key element of the makeup of Stephen Harper. This man believes in perpetual politicking. He has absorbed that lesson from the conservative party in the US, and has practised it with great effect ever since he united the parties on the right. And this political genetic material gives Harper a substantial advantage over the relative political rookie, Ignatieff. Ignatieff has not fought an election as leader of a party before; in fact his practical political experience is very limited.

Harper's belief that politics is perpetual has lead him to undertake perpetual electioneering; the actual elections themselves are only minor blips on the road.
And in this mode Harper is permanently assessing all events from the point of view of their impact on an election.

The polls have shown the two major national parties virtually deadlocked, with both getting the nod from just over 30% of the electorate, and neither being able to differentiate itself enough to enable it to break away into majority territory (the high thirties). These political doldrums have lasted for long enough that any practical politician has to consider that what is happening right now probably might also happen on election day.

That means a minority government.

And if Harper wins yet another minority government, it means he has to win the support of at least one other party in parliament in order to survive the first non-confidence vote. This irresistible political logic means that Harper has to yet once more peel Ignatieff away from joining forces with the Bloc and NDP MPs so as to avoid losing power.

And right here we find the political pressure point which Harper has focused most of his actions on. At all costs, he has to reduce the probability of a minority Liberal government being able to replace his government through some formal or informal support from the Bloc and the NDP.

And it is here that we see that the Liberal leadership team are fighting the last war instead if today's war. The advisor thinks he has "seen this movie before." Well, he is wrong. The movies he saw before were playing when Harper was not leader of the right wing party and in control of all the levers of the government.

The movie that we are seeing now was written by, produced by, directed by and acted by Stephen Harper, the man who campaigns permanently, while Michael munches and does book tours.

And that movie has one scene which spells doom for the Liberals' chances of forming the government any time soon.

Why?

Because Harper is framing the issue to be discussed should an election result in November this year. That issue will not be any policies released by the Liberals when the writ is dropped (contrary to the above LPC advisor's fond expectation that the polls will suddenly change in favour of the Liberals once the House is in session again).

The issue will be political instability arising from the immoral joinng of forces by the Liberal Party with the godless socialists and illegitimate separatists to replace the legitimate, 'truly Canadian' Conservative government.

Harper spelled this out when he called for a majority government.

"While he broke his promise for fixed-date elections last year, Mr. Harper is now actively campaigning against a fall election and emphasized last week that this is not the time for political instability.

"The last thing Canadians want is a Liberal government propped up by the NDP and the Bloc Québécois," Mr. Harper said at the event in Mr. Calandra's riding.

However, the Conservatives are getting ready for an election, and some are relishing the thought of openly calling for a majority for the first time in five years."

The Tories have kept up a steady drum beat of criticism of Ignatieff, often using his own words against him. We can expect this to continue, and one set of words in particular will be quoted ad nauseam over the next few weeks. When Ignatieff decided on unilateral repudiation of the agreement the Liberal Party had signed with the NDP and the Bloc to provide for a coalition government replacing the Tories for a period of 18 or more months, Ignatieff uttered words which might well have been written for him by Harper (quoted by Simpson):

"“There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me,” he confided. While perfectly legal, it would nonetheless have struck many Canadians, coming so soon after an election in which the Liberals had suffered their worst defeat since Confederation, as if they and their coalition partners had “in some sense or another stolen power.”

Moreover, it would have been very difficult to assure the country of the certainty and stability it needed in a time of crisis “with three partners in a formal coalition,” he said, likening it, CP reports, to a rickety three-legged stool. “That was my first doubt. I couldn’t guarantee the long-term stability of the coalition.”
Especially when, as he told an interviewer back in March, one of the partners was a separatist party. “I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but . . . I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up.”

So let’s see: the coalition was divisive, illegitimate, unstable, and wrong — a formal pact with a separatist party that would have guaranteed them, in the words of the accord to which the three opposition leaders affixed their signatures, a “permanent consultation mechanism” in the government of Canada. Or pretty much what all of the coalition’s critics said at the time.

Except, that is, for Michael Ignatieff. At the time, he vowed his support for the coalition, explicitly, publicly, and repeatedly. At the time, he said, “I stand at one with other parliamentary colleagues in believing that we need to present the alternative of a coalition.” At the time, he said the coalition “provides responsible economic leadership in tough times.” At the time, he said Canadians should not fear the Bloc Québécois’ role in the coalition. He even signed a formal petition to the Governor General, assuring her that the coalition represented “a viable alternative government.”"

And in a later conversation, Ignatieff seemed to rule out every entering into a coalition with the Bloc, without explaining why (except perhaps his earlier statement that some people in the West – Alberta? – were angry at the thought):

"Q: You have defended the coalition and the association of the Liberal party with the Bloc by arguing that they're legitimately elected parliamentarians and, while you might not like what they represent, you respect the fact that they represent a particular constituency in Quebec. Would you enter into a coalition or a similar agreement with the Bloc again?

A: My sense is I'm strongly disposed against it, but I don't know what situations I'm going to face in the future. I thought it was legitimate to conclude an agreement because I said at the time - and have said since - I didn't believe it would compromise the national unity of my country, and that was the bottom line for me and for every MP in my party. We've all learned a lesson about coalition. One of the things I took away from the experience is it awoke particularly strong feeling in the West. I'm in this country to unite Canadians, not divide them, and I took the messages from the West very seriously. There was a genuine feeling of anger on that issue, and we all have to learn from that.

Q: But the coalition wasn't a mistake?

A: No, I've said that I think the coalition was not a mistake because it showed that if you messed with Parliament, Parliament would turn around and bite you and force you to take measures which this government should have taken in late November.

Q: So a coalition with the Bloc again, if circumstances present, is a possibility?

A: I've made it very clear that I have deep difficulty with the very possibility. What I said is that in a future in which there is a possibility of minority governments, I would not exclude making arrangements or agreements, public, transparent agreements, with other parties that will allow me to govern. But notice I did not use the word "coalition."

Q: I'm not clear what you're ruling out.

A: I think it's very difficult for me to do a deal with the Bloc. But let's be clear why: it's not because I doubt the good faith of Mr. Duceppe or his capacity to carry out his word. My issue is that they have different strategic objectives.
Q: But you won't rule it out categorically.

A: I am telling you I would not go into coalition agreements with the Bloc Québécois, period. That rules it out. In a situation of minority Parliaments, Canadians have to get used to the idea that it is responsible for political leaders to envisage the possibility of creating agreements or accords or political arrangements to govern in order to secure stable government, but not with the Bloc."

Now let's just stop a minute and understand why Ignatieff's position, if he rigidly adheres to it, might be the second most foolish decision ever taken by the leader of a major Canadian party (Joe Clerk's decision to call the election which caused him to lose power being the worst).

Firstly, the Coalition agreement he (along with every other Liberal MP) signed with the NDP, and the accompanying supporting agreement signed between the LPC, NDP and Bloc (under which the Bloc would not vote against a minority LPC-NDP coalition government for at least 18 months), was a good thing because the threat of all 3 opposition parties actually honouring their signatures made the Tories offer some stimulus spending in their revised budget.

Second, it was perfectly legitimate for Bloc MPs to sign the supporting agreement with the aspirant LPC-NDP coalition agreement, because that agreement did not contain any terms which threatened the unity of the country.

Third, however, despite at first thinking such a LPC-NDP coalition agreement with such a supporting agreement from the Bloc did promise stable government, he later decided (after hearing from some angry Albertans, no doubt) that it did not; that in fact it was as unstable as a three-legged stool.

Fourth, if he became leader of a minority Liberal government, then he would enter into agreements needed to ensure that the Liberals could govern ("I would not exclude making arrangements or agreements, public, transparent agreements, with other parties that will allow me to govern. But notice I did not use the word "coalition.")

So there we have it. Harper's work is half done. Ignatieff is against coalition agreements (presumably even with the NDP) but for other agreements. No longer a coalition agreement if necessary but not necessarily a coalition agreement – Ignatieff has moved on to a new slogan: Never a coalition agreement but maybe some other kind of an agreement …

Provided, of course, he can find any NDP and Bloc leader who is prepared to trust his signature to any agreement at all.

By ruling out any possibility of a coalition agreement with any other opposition party, Ignatieff is displaying surprising naivety. There was no need for such a substantial change to the Liberal Party position, especially after the upswelling of support for the agreement all Liberal MPs signed amongst Liberals and independent voters.

So this leaves the Liberal Party bereft of a major weapon it might need to replace Harper's government.

It is in the interests of the Liberal Party that the official position of the LPC on entering into coalition agreements be publicly debated within the party, and outside the party, so that the millions of Canadians who want to have the Tory government replaced understand why the Liberals seem to have bought into Harper's demonizing of the rights of the Quebeckers to elect Bloc MPs to represent them in parliament, and that coalition governments are illegitimate power grabs.

Or else we can simply wait for Harper to keep trying to win a majority government, and make the whole issue of the rightful role of coalition governments in our parliamentary conventions of academic interest only.

I, for one, certainly hope that the next leader of the Liberal Party publicly and expeditiously reverse the Ignatieff stand on the possibility of the LPC entering into coalition agreements.