Being In Opposition Has Little Appeal For Liberals

In saying that they weren't going to contest the Liberal leadership, the party's three 'tier-one' candidates --Frank McKenna, John Manley and Brian Tobin --said all the things that such occasions require.

The job was of immense importance. The chance to serve the public was well nigh irresistible. They would remain loyal Liberals.

Okay, okay, we all know all that.

It's what none of them said that was really interesting.

None said that Stephen Harper was a big factor in their decision. And none said that Edward Blake was an even bigger factor.

Harper, of course, needs no introduction. He's been prime minister since Monday. As is even more relevant to the decisions McKenna and Manley and Tobin have just made, Harper may very well be prime minister for at least the next six years.

Absent some bad breaks -- such as an economic recession, which has to happen some time -- it's quite possible Harper will win two more elections.

Edward Blake may need some introducing to readers who skipped Canadian history in high school. Among all Liberal party leaders since Confederation, Blake is the odd man out.

Not in himself. He was a super-brainy lawyer and a progressive thinker, if handicapped (curious how history repeats itself) by having great difficulty in relating to people. Blake led the Liberals from 1880 to 1887 before handing over to Wilfrid Laurier.

What made Blake one of a kind was that among all Liberal leaders in the last 140 years, he alone never became prime minister.

The likelihood of becoming the 21st century equivalent of Blake -- a fate endured routinely by Liberal opponents from Robert Stanfield to Preston Manning -- had to have influenced the decisions by McKenna and Manley and Tobin.

Objectively, it's very hard to see how the Liberals can win a quick rebound election, no matter who leads them.

For one thing, the Liberals have just lost their calling card. Conservative gains in Quebec mean that the Liberals are no longer Canada's only truly national party.

The Liberals are now merely another federalist alternative rather than the only credible alternative. Moreover, so-called 'soft nationalists' in Quebec are bound to find appealing the major devolution to the provinces of Ottawa cash and powers that Harper plans.

For another thing, while Harper talks constantly about his 'five priorities,' such as accountability and tax cuts, he in fact has a sixth priority.

This unstated priority -- call it Harper's hidden agenda -- is to win a majority in an election in two years or so.

That's why he picked a quarrel with U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins over the issue of Arctic sovereignty, even though the ambassador said nothing that was new and lots of other countries dispute our Arctic sovereignty claims. Also, hollowing-out Ottawa will please the West as well as Quebec.

Cool political calculations like these will almost certainly leave the next Liberal leader looking at a minimum of six years' hard labour.

This is too demanding a task for most potential Liberal leaders, most of whose predecessors --from Pierre Trudeau to John Turner to Paul Martin-- bounded straight into the prime minister's office when they took over the leadership.

Among potential candidates, just one has experience of battling in the trenches as all Conservative leaders have undergone as a trial by ordeal, often without any reward at all.

He's Bob Rae. For eight years, 1982-1990, he slogged away as opposition leader. Then, by some magical alchemy, he won an election that everyone -- Rae himself included -- assumed he was going to get trounced in.

It's a detail that this was in Ontario and for the New Democratic Party.

To accept a future of which its probable upper limits are those of merely being opposition leader takes toughness and resilience.

Harper possesses these qualities. Rae shares them. As a last asset, he studied history and so knows who Blake was.

Embassy, February 8th, 2006
By Richard Gwyn

1 Comments:

Anonymous said...: Harper, the Bloc and framing the so-called “Fiscal Imbalance”.

While the Liberals turn inwards to consider electing a new leader, they risk being bamboozled by the smartest leader the Conservatives have had for decades. We have seen with the Emerson defection that we have to weigh carefully exactly what Harper says about any issue, and even more importantly, what he does not say. His reaction then speaks volumes: I did not say that. Harper has given Canadians fair warning that he chooses his words carefully.

Bearing that in mind, let’s consider the most downplayed aspect of Harper’s election platform, and its impact on the choice of leader for the Liberals.

It is essential that the Liberals choose a leader who is up to speed in modern political developments. If any aspirant leader has no knowledge of George Lakoff’s seminal work Don’t Think of an Elephant, then his or her name should immediately be taken off the list of possible leadership candidates. Why? Because such a leader would lose the next election to Harper by a wide margin.

Why do I say that?

Because Harper has already outsmarted the Liberal leaders, starting with Martin. Lakoff’s premise is that the framing of any political topic is the most important part of the political battle. If you can frame it your way, then the dialogue takes place on the battleground of your choosing, and your opponents are forced to address the issue in a way you chose. For example, if I tell you not to think of an elephant for the next 60 seconds, you will find it impossible to do so.

Harper has already framed the debate as a discussion of a “fiscal imbalance.” What does this mean:

He has:

· Dictated that the debate will be about an “imbalance”;
· Imbalance implies that there is an element of unfairness involved;
· Those opposing his ideas can be typecast as opposing a virtue – that is, as supporting something which is wrong, being the “imbalance”;
· He has framed the discussion as one which means that the issue to be resolved is to remedy the “imbalance” by taking away taxing power from the federal government and giving it to the provinces.

What has happened? The Liberals and the press are talking on his terms, using his framing. This is a no-win situation for Liberals and for Canadians.

Harper’s framing is deceptive and extraordinariy dangerous for Canadians.

Liberals and NDPers will need to change the framing to ensure that the public understands that what Harper intends is to dramatically reduce the powers of the federal government by entering into agreements with the provinces which effectively diminish the role of the central government in Canada. He will do so by – to use the words of the right wing Republicans pursuing similar aims in the USA – making the central government so weak financially that it can be “drowned in the bathtub”.

I prefer a different framing: the Bloc Power Grab.

Why? Because the danger is that the only political party which will agree to Harper’s program to diminish the federal government’s role is the Bloc. The Liberals (assuming their interim or chosen leader has any political acumen – something not yet demonstrated on this issue) and NDP will not agree to Harper’s plan.

But the Bloc will, because they share the same aim as Harper’s New Tories do – to weaken Canada’s federal government and create more powerful provinces at the expense of that government.

Is there any basis in my argument? Consider Harper’s own words:

“As soon as he comes to office, Mr. Harper would initiate discussions to solve the problem of the fiscal imbalance. “The fiscal imbalance is not just a budget problem; a lot of money is involved. The functioning and the very spirit of the Canadian federation are at stake,” he declared. The Conservative leader made a commitment to oversee federal spending power, which is the result of the fiscal imbalance, which “was so abused” by the federal Liberals. “This outrageous spending power has created dominating and paternalistic federalism, which is a serious threat to the future of our federation,” according to Harper.” (20 December 2005 Publication: Le Devoir). ““I recognize that the money is in Ottawa while the needs are in the provinces,” says Harper.” “The government will be bound to respecting provincial jurisdiction while instituting a permanent consultation mechanism with the provinces and collaboration with the Council of the Federation. Moreover, this charter will ensure that the fiscal imbalance is corrected and that federal spending power is overseen.”

And also this report:

“The fiscal imbalance problem has allowed federal mismanagement of taxpayers’ money totaling billions of dollars.” (Harper’s Letter from Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to the Council of the Federation 15 January 2006) “We are committed to restoring balance to the fiscal relationship between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments through a number of means, including such possibilities as increasing transfer payments to the provinces, reducing federal taxation in order to leave more tax room to the provinces, and transferring tax points to the provinces to ensure a fair distribution of new revenues.”
Still think Harper’s New Tories are not a threat?
Liberals should ask every candidate for leadership of the party this one simple question: Do you agree with Harper’s framing of the issue as being one of a fiscal imbalance?
Any candidate who says Yes is not worth considering – Harper will run rings around that person.; Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:25:00 PM