Tuesday, April 19, 2011

A Minority Report on Stephen Harper

Today, John Ibbitson wrote on his blog about Stephen Harper's future after the next election. While trying to convince Canadians that his government will surely be replaced by a "reckless coalition" if the Tories win anything less than a majority mandate, history, parliamentary precedent and common sense argue otherwise.

Harper wants us to believe that Michael Ignatieff will lead a creaky minority propped up by the NDP and the Bloc should the Conservatives win less than the 155 seats needed for a majority. This presupposes that shortly after the election, the Tories will be unable to command the confidence of the full House of Commons (expressed through votes on the Speech from the Throne that always begins a new parliamentary session, or on the budget that would have be presented shortly thereafter if they survive the Throne Speech vote).

If the Tories were defeated in such a scenario, the Governor General would have the option of asking the Leader of the Opposition to form a government and to attempt to secure the confidence of the House, rather than call another election. Since Iggy is most likely to be Opposition Leader at that time, this line of thinking then elevates the Liberal Leader to the Prime Minister's chair, and the red and blue ties and scarves would switch sides of the aisle on Parliament Hill.

There is a real possibility this could happen. I don't discount this as a true, potentially persuasive option for the Opposition under our system. However, it is not at all clear this would actually happen right away.

A third Tory minority led by Stephen Harper may be unappetizing to the Liberals and NDP, but it may be even more unappealing to the Tories. If the opposition permits the Conservative Party to continue governing, Tory party insiders might become bolder and more vocal in their dissatisfaction with Harper's leadership. Some minds may reach the conclusion that the key to a majority victory is in the pocket of another politician -- one the voters haven't made solid conclusions about and may make it possible to wipe the slate clean in time for another kick at the can. Tories may very well realize Stephen Harper threw two hard punches at Liberal leaders they perceived as weak (Stephane Dion and Ignatieff), but still couldn't knock them out for good. By then, Harper will be batting oh-for-four in pursuit of a majority government, a stat line any grade school softball player can tell you isn't particularly good. Allowing discontent to bubble on government benches may be more palatable to opposition parties who will need to fundraise and consolidate after May 2 in preparation for the next election than seizing the reins of government themselves.

Also, potentially epic bad news is on the horizon for a re-elected Tory minority. The issues to be brought forward in the Auditor-General's G8 report and the various documents and reports set to be released on Afghan detainees whenever Parliament reconvenes will apply the match to the kerosene-soaked ethics of the government. Standing back and watching the straw man atop the Tories' high horse set ablaze may be a sight too irresistible to Opposition eyes to miss seeing, especially the Liberals. To have Harper hoisted on his own petard over abusive spending, blatant pork-barrelling, cover-ups and double dealing under the glaring light of public parliamentary scrutiny is something no Opposition party could ever do more effectively on the campaign trail or from government benches. There is also the real possibility Harper could lose a minister or two (hello, Tony Clement!) over these missteps as well. There is a chance for a longer term victory for the Liberals that comes from the short-term compromise of leaving Harper at 24 Sussex.

Keeping the Tories in power could also fit the NDP narrative. Jack Layton (if current polling trends hold up) may emerge stronger from a campaign he was expected to be more damaged by than any other opposition leader. Using this strength to demand concessions from a Tory minority government may demonstrate to the voters his ongoing commitment to making Parliament work, and expose the Prime Minister to more charges of autocratic, anti-democratic behaviour if the offer is refused or ignored. If the PM does this, he risks coming off looking like the bully the Opposition said he was all along during the recently-completed campaign; if Harper listens, it may make him look good but it would also increase Layton's credibility. Either way, the NDP could paint the Tories into a corner: either play ball and compromise, or get booted from office as a direct result of publicly exposed non-cooperation. For Tories to keep claiming to be a party interested in moderate, responsive government while refusing to engage with willing opposition MPs in Parliament would be an exercise in blatant hypocrisy.

Under such circumstances, the pressures on Harper would build. Unable to push an agenda exclusively to Tory tastes, and with no clear path to a majority government under his leadership, it is hard to see how the Conservatives could stomach leaving Harper at the helm for an extended period. And if the scandals of the past five years (swept under the rug before the election call in the hope a majority could be secured before the truth came out) are systematically exposed, a Harper resignation could come sooner rather than later.

The Conservative Leader knows this. He won't talk about it, because that outcome scares the daylights out of him. Being forced into another minority mandate takes many of the tools he wishes to use after May 2 out of his hands. The control he covets would be nearly impossible to get back. Instead of steering the boat, he'd be forced to grab the wheel and hold on for dear life.

Given some of the other possible outcomes available to the opposition parties, that's a storm they may be willing ride out.

No comments: