Election Discussion

First impressions:

Liberals did better than expected. They ran a piss-poor campaign versus an excellent Conservative campaign but there is only a 21 seat gap between them and the Tories.

NDP did a fantastic job. Layton had every right to be beaming on stage last night, as he was along with Olivia Chow, who is also going to Ottawa. (alevo: does K work for Tony Ianno?). Going from 18 seats to 29 is an impressive achievement.

Conservatives have a minority but it will be a difficult tightrope walk in the weeks and months ahead. They did well in Quebec which is a surprise, winning 10 seats the last I heard. I’m particularly pleased by how poorly the BQ did compared to expectations, winning 42% of the popular vote in QC compared to 49% the last time. The Cons deserve kudos for pulling in Quebecers.

As always in elections, there were also some wins and losses that have a personal touch. Tony Valeri, who ousted Sheila Copps from her Stoney Creek riding in a bitterly-fought battle after their ridings were amalgamated, was booted out by Wayne Marston of the NDP. Pettigrew, who I’ve long felt was an ineffective, irritating minister, also got the boot. David Christopherson won again, no surprise there, but it’s nice when the person you votes for wins.

… does Harper even own a cat? ‘The ones who have cats want to serve?’ Maybe a more appropriate soundbyte, given the focus on corruption, would be ‘The ones who have cats are the people unwilling to pick up steaming poop’.

It’s funny how people always leave out the middle part of that quote, Ryan. That is, “What matters and should matter to politicians and people who believe in the kind of values that I believe the National Citizens’ Coalition share and the Reform Party share is not whether the Canadian state prospers, but whether the Canadian people and the land we call Canada prosper.” Essentially, what he’s actually saying is that “what matters to the people who share my beliefs is not that the Canadian government is strong but that the Canadian people are strong.” Which I find a pretty reasonable statement. Canada as a state isn’t a divine institution, it’s a means to an end. If that end doesn’t serve the Canadian people then that institution needs to change.

If the federal government is a means to an end, I think what becomes evident from the electoral results posted last night is that there are many different “ends” on the table. Federalist, provincial, municipal, rural, social, big-business, families, change, accountability etc, etc, etc.

Certanily, we can see some big-picture issues already that are going to shape Harper’s mandate. Federalism is straining under regional tensions, and the municipal agenda (crime waves included) is making the formula for political success in federalism more complicated. I peredict this going to be a reccuring theme in the Harper mandate, and the lack of urban Ontario support will not help. The dialogue on provincial and federal roles is going to change for the forseeable future – the Harpies have nothing to gain politically from a hard-line approach to centralist governance. Instead, they will have a vested interst in winning focused battles. They will be intnet on influencing the upcoming Quebec election (the fortunes of the Parti Québécois) and continuing to foster stability, if only in a cosmetic sense between Quebec and their administration. As Ryan ponted out, they did not win ten seats in Quebec because they are a federalist option, they won them because they are open to a new deal for provinces.

Harper’s honeymoon won’t last long, and he can expect a luke warm response to several of his ‘mantlepiece’ policies. This includes the forthcoming accountability act. This beast may barely resemble the platform proposal he was selling once it goes to committee and through the senate. He will have to walk a tightrope to pass a budget – one largely expected before summer recess – placating Ontario big-business, western resource industries, provincial spending authority, and federal social programs. His tax-cutting mantra will only go so far in a House where there are 29 ‘dippers and a series of left-leaning Libs.

On the flipside I think he is going to have a strong cabinet, with several key provincial players from Ontario and new Quebec MPs joining the fold. These are going to make key foot soldiers for Harper, and help him to deflect the personal criticisms that have dogged him in opposition. He will have very few women in cabinet, but will have a fairly young caucus – possibly the youngest ever. This is an interesting dynamic, and it could drastically help or hinder the Tory party brand while in power.

I think the biggest “impact” stories coming out of last night are that:

1) The Liberals are going to need a new leader. This is going to take them alot of internal energy and strife. The party will divide viciously along it’s own inner faultlines and Liberal MPs risk a willy-nilly opposition if they don’t cooperate against Harper. Remember, Harper enjoys considerable caucus support and a strong resolve among his MPs to advance their ground; the Liberals may not be able to compete in the midst of a leadership review and that is going to seriously affect the outcome of the next term.

2) The NDP land a boatload of credibility. Picking up on voter dissatisfaction with the Liberals in Parkdale Highpark, Hamilton East and Trinity Spadina; capturing over 19% of the popular vote; and winning 10 seats in BC. Thankfully, they avoided the Svend-factor and they now find themselves the only party returning to the house without any egg on their face. If Layton and Chow can tone-down the cheesey dual public appearances and actually re-invigorate a purposeful discussion on what the NDP means to Canada, we may see the NDP sustain support through to the next election.

Cabinet rumours are the hotter than a beavertail on the canal here in Ottawa. I thought I would share what I am hearing out of my Tory contacts. Although it is all speculation at this point, there are some weighty factors influencing the cabinet announcemnts, which by-the-by are largely expected to happen ealry next week.

As I mentioned in my last comments, there are few women to go around. Harper will absolutely fill two-three top posts with women. These are most likely Diane Ablonczy, Josée Verner, and Rona Ambrose, but could also include Carol Skelton, Bev Oda or Lynn Yellich. The Health portfolio, and or the Deputy Leadership are expected to be reserved for a female MP.

If the Health portfolio does not go to one of these lucky ladies, it is likely going to go to one of the new MPs with provincial experience. Jim Baird or Tony Clement. (Personally, I think a vocal, well-spoken candidate is needed in Health – think Monte Solberg – but, Harper may want his attackdog to paly another role).

I have heard that Solberg and Rajotte, two prominent Alberta Tories, will categorically not be returning to the house as Ministers of their respective critic portfolios. So, Solberg will not be on Finance, and Rajotte will not get Industry. I suspect that this shake-up will be used to reward Jim Flaherty for winning in Oshawa-Whitby, or Lawernce Cannon for winning in Pontiac.

It is rumoured that Harper is going to be his own Minister of Intergovernmental affairs. He will make federal-provincial realtions his pet issue. This may be his achilles heel, if he cannot successfully resolve issues of fiscal imbalance – placating Alberta while paying-off the Maritimes with transfer payments – he may be seen as a failure, and by implication his government would be viewed a failure. This is a position to watch closely – and could also be the logical place to put Peter MacKay.

On that note, what to do with Peter MacKay? He could be headed to Justice, capatilizing on his former life as a public prosecutor in Nova Scotia. He could also be headed for the Deputy Leader’s seat. Whatever Harper does with Mackay, it will certainly be viewed as a litmus test for Harper’s political saavy (or at least the saavy of his inner circle). If the Tories choose to learn one lesson from the Liberals, it should be taken from the bitter Chretien-Martin leadership feud and the resulting collapse of the Liberal brand as Martin burned every bridge in sight. Sheila Copps’ column in the Sun today addresses this point quite well. I think Harper will opt to keep MacKay close, and happy. We’ll see.

Harper is expected to cut the numbers in his cabinet, possibly eliminating some junior minister positions like Public Health, or Families and Caregivers. This is going to leave some MPs in the cold, particularly folks like Steven Fletcher, Colin Carrie and Rahim Jaffer, who are considered to be lightweights in the grand scheme of the Tory pecking order. If Jaffer goes anywhere important, it might be Immigration, he is one of the few visible minorities in the Tory ranks and yes, they are just that shallow.

Stand by. I will let you know when there is more juicy gossip.

“It was pointed out to me by a colleague at lunch that the Aboriginal and Northern Affiars portfolio could be a hotseat”

Maybe Harper will violate shake up the caucus and appoint his close, personal advisor Tom “First Nations, Second Thoughts” Flanagan…

“Lastly, it will be interesting to see what happens to the bible-thumpers in the caucus”

I’ve been wondering about this as well. The successful election campaign hinged on these candidates staying on message and otherwise keeping their mouths shut. The question is whether the party leadership’s grip on its members will continue once Parliament gets back into session.

Now, it’s interesting that the newsmedia didn’t really pick up on the “ethics” of forbidding your candidates to speak freely even though part of your platform is to allow more free votes, but let’s set that aside for the time being.

The Conservatives don’t have enough seats to overturn same sex marriages or ban abortions. Most Liberals and nearly all NDP and Bloc members will vote against such, uh, private members’ bills. But Harper has to throw a few bones to the religious faction of his base. That means he either has to put some legislation on the table or at least let his fundamentalist MPs blow off some steam.

Unlike President Bush, who seems to have internalized the logic of fundamentalism, Harper’s a neoliberal through and through. He sees religion the way neocon granddaddy Irving Kristol sees it: as a useful way of maintaining traditions of behaviour.

Also unlike President Bush, Harper is not governing a nation of fundamentalists, and Dominionist code won’t play well here. At the same time, Harper may be able to reassure more moderate Canadians by making a show of reining in his more radical MPs. That, of course, could also backfire.

In any case, it’s my great hope: the Conservatives freak out a lot of Canadians by opening their mouths and saying what’s on their minds, the NDP act professional and prime ministerial, and the Liberals fail to get their acts together in time for the next vote of non-confidence.

Could an NDP minority with a Liberal swing vote be in the cards?

Ryan – you can bet that Flanagan had some influence on the descision re. the Kelowna funding. I think that is going to be a big mistake for the Tories, and probably a key theme in the first wave of Liberal opposition critiques.

“The question is whether the party leadership’s grip on its members will continue once Parliament gets back into session.”

I think it will. They have already provided an essential muzzle. The Harper “inner circle” has developed their Five-Point Plan, and I suspect that no MP is allowed/advised to talk outside of the plan. Already, I have seen numerous interviews with Tory MPs where they reference the Five-Point Plan ad nauseum. Every question posed by a reporter, even those of a probing ideological nature can be deflected by referencing the Five-Point Plan. That Plan is going to be as important for defining the early Harper regime as The Gomery Inquiry was for defining the early Martin regime. Arguably, as you point out, this is an assualt on the ethics that underpin free speech, but it is also brilliant tactical politics given the current situation. However, it could backfire if they can’t pass parts of The Plan through the house.

“Could an NDP minority with a Liberal swing vote be in the cards?”

Not if the Liberals have a quick and succesful leadership campaign. Granted the odds here are slim, but I don’t think any party, even the NDP wants to gamble on another election anytime soon, so the Libs may have time to duke it out. That said, I would also say that the interim leader for the Liberals (whoever that ends up being – but I hear it will be Bill Graham) will play a huge role defining the characteristics of potential swing vote before the summer. If he sucks, the Liberals will give up more swing vote to the NDP. Keeping in mind too that the Liberals tend to use up all the assailable ground on the left hand side of the political spectrum when they are in opposition. Graham (or whoever takes the reigns) has to battle hard to quickly win back some of the sincerity points the Liberals have lost with the Canadian public. In my opinion, if the NDP wants continued success they have to pretend it is the Liberals who are in power and attack them rather than the Tories. Layton and his new orange swath in the House have to continue to point out that the Liberals are corrupt, negligent, unprogressive, a relic of Canadian politics. Right now that wouldn’t be a hard message to deliver. The Liberals on the other hand have to convince Canadians it’s not true.

Why Canadians Hate Politics

Gordon Campbell, talking about whether the Conservatives will honour the Kelowna Accord, actually said the following sentence:

I think there is a clear commitment that we’re gonna move on the new relationship, we want to move on the new relationship, we have a responsibility to move on the new relationship, and I think that the dollars will be there, will flow there.

Ack! Anyone else’s brain bleeding right now?