As I Glance Into My Crystal Ball ...

There are so many possible outcomes from Monday's election that the mind boggles. Conservative majority, Tory minority, NDP/Liberal coalition, NDP minority, Conservative/Liberal coalition, Liberal/NDP coalition, Liberal minority ... all these exist as possible governing options for the country.

Despite this reality, there are only two results actually possible on May 2, to my mind: a Tory majority or a Tory minority; however, there are several different ways the second situation might play itself out. Let's do a quick overview:

1. Conservative Majority

Stephen Harper's strategy of micro-campaigning is aided by the NDP surge in the final week of the campaign. Vote splits in Quebec City, southern Ontario, pockets of the Atlantic and in B.C. nearly all break his way, and the Tories eke out a majority victory. Harper's ultimate ambition is realized. Such a result is possible only if the Liberals lose a bunch of seats and the NDP is strong enough in Quebec to drop the Bloc back a few MPs as well. It matters little whether the Liberals, NDP or Bloc form the Official Opposition in this instance. This result leaves Canada with a conservative hue to its government that nearly two-thirds of it didn't want, and no way to change the situation for four years. 

In terms of democracy, accountability and the desires of the Canadian people, this is the singular worst outcome -- a nightmare scenario for anyone who thinks Harper needs to be called on the carpet for previous behaviour. 

2. Conservative Minority

Based on current polling trends, this seems to be the most likely outcome (though nothing is truly as it seems in this campaign). Under this scenario, the Conservatives will win anywhere between 135-154 seats on Monday. This is short of a majority but also a clear first-place finish. Such a scenario means the voting splits mentioned above didn't all break the Tories' way, meaning many or all of the following: NDP gains in Quebec and BC, a mix of Liberal holds and NDP pick-ups in Ontario, and a bit of seat-shifting in the Atlantic unfavourable to Harper's party.

The scenario is highly fluid, of course, but in all likelihood this result would mean the NDP has made significant increases in its seat total. As the Liberal vote collapsed in the past week, people moved in numbers to support the NDP. If this trend holds out on Election Day, Layton would become the Leader of the Opposition. It's tough to see a scenario where Michael Ignatieff retains the role, unless the masses of Quebeckers suddenly decided to go back to the Bloc -- an event I see as highly improbable. But it is possible. More on that later.

In a hung Parliament where no party commands a majority, the Tories would retain government and have the first opportunity to try to gain the confidence of the House of Commons. At that point, here's what could happen:

(a) The Tories are permitted to govern 

I wrote about this in a previous blog post, before the NDP surge changed the calculus somewhat. This can still happen, and in fact I think is the most likely outcome with an NDP Opposition. 

If Jack Layton leads the second party in the House, the Liberals wouldn't be keen to join with the NDP to govern, either on a case-by-case basis, in a negotiated arrangement or in a coalition. It would be like signing their own death warrant; such a move could be seen as a Grit invitation to the NDP to permanently replace them as the main alternative to the Tories. In all probability, the number of MPs in the Liberal and Tory caucuses would constitute a working majority. The Tories would amend their budgetary proposals and consult with the Grits to create a government agenda Ignatieff and the rest of his chastened crew could live with, thereby ensuring the NDP could not make a play for power. 

The price of Tory compromise for the Liberals, however, would be exclusion from Cabinet. I believe the Tories would either seek to govern ad hoc (which I think the Liberals would reject out of hand), or offer to make the Throne Speech the blueprint of a joint Tory/Grit agenda, similar to the 1985-87 Ontario Liberal/NDP accord that brought David Peterson to power in Toronto, propped up by Bob Rae. Tories would do this, even if it gives the Liberals a bit of a lease on new life, in order to prevent the NDP from making their own arrangements to toss Harper out of power. 

Where it becomes interesting is if either party demands the other partner dump their leader as part of the deal. Liberals would want assurances Harper would not be retained as Prime Minister, while the Tories may not want to sign an accord with the "just visiting" Ignatieff still at the Liberal helm.

I should also mention that the Bloc would probably also be able to combine their parliamentary votes with the Tories to keep them in power; however, given Gilles Duceppe's ongoing vilification by Harper as a traitor to Canada and Duceppe's bald disdain for Harper's autocratic tendencies, I see this as unlikely indeed.

(b) The Tories are brought down and the NDP is in position to govern

If the Tories refuse to compromise or cannot come to an agreement with the Liberals (or the Bloc) to remain in power, their government will fall as soon as Parliament convenes, likely on a confidence vote on their Throne Speech. Harper would then have to visit Governor General David Johnston at Rideau Hall and tender his resignation as Prime Minister. I believe he would also request new elections. This is where things get interesting.

It's doubtful the GG will simply hand the keys to 24 Sussex to Layton. Knowing there is no appetite for a new election, Johnston would seek to avoid one; however, he will want to know Layton can command the confidence of the House. If Layton were able to work out an agreement with the Liberals (in this case, I think a coalition in which the Grits hold some of the economic portfolios is the only way such a deal gets done), then the NDP could be offered the opportunity to do the unprecedented -- govern in Canada at the federal level.

(c) The Tories are brought down and the Liberals are in position to govern

Some Liberals insist the impending demise of the Liberal Party of Canada has been greatly exaggerated, and the multitude of Liberal voters who stayed home in 2008 will come out and come through for their party. I personally don't believe it, but I also didn't think Jack Layton could become Opposition Leader two weeks ago, either. So I don't discount it out of hand, as some other commentators have done.

If the Liberals are able to hold together and get enough of their supporters out to the ballot boxes on Monday, they could still finish ahead of the NDP in seat count (though they cannot catch the Tories in this respect) through favourable vote splits in parts of the Atlantic, the Montreal area, southern and eastern Ontario, and the Lower Mainland in B.C. The Bloc would also have to hold many of its most contested seats in Quebec to keep the NDP seat count lower that the Grits'. Should Ignatieff remain the Leader of the Opposition, defeating the Tories on their Throne Speech is pretty much the only way he can keep his job as head of the party.

Should the Tories fall under this scenario, the call from the GG would be placed to Ignatieff, and not to Layton. He would probably have to present evidence of NDP and Bloc willingness to permit him to govern, through either gaining a deal on a budget, through a longer-term accord, or through a coalition with the NDP. If Ignatieff were to approach Layton for support under these conditions, I don't see any way the Liberals avoid putting Dippers in Cabinet. The biggest knock against the NDP is their lack of governmental experience. You can bet they want to change that before the next time voters are asked to pass judgement on the members of the House of Commons.

(d) None of the above

However, if it all fell apart and a new election became the only option left, voters would blame the whole lot of them. The writs would be dropped, the politicians would hit the hustings again -- and all bets would be off.

And Just to Reiterate ...

I was chatting with a friend of mine this afternoon, and the subject of Bob Rae's NDP premiership came up in our election talk. I asked her: how old were you when Bob Rae was elected Ontario premier in October 1990? She said she was four years old.

This woman is a tireless NDP campaign worker. She represents a cohort of young people energized by Jack Layton and working to have him and other members of his team elected on Monday. They have no memory of the Rae years, and frankly don't care. It holds no relevance to Jack, to the federal scene, or to the NDP's ability to bring forward its message in the current context, a full two decades after Ontarians took a chance on the province's traditional third party.

Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff, plus all the pundits and political commentators who are trying to create fear and trepidation about the spectre of a strengthened NDP in Ottawa miss this crucial point. If voters under 35 turn out in big numbers, the people who expect an NDP pullback similar to 1988 will be in for a shock.

I don't think it'll happen. The support levels we're seeing in these final days of polling will hold true on voting day. I expect to see the NDP numbers in the 28-33% range when it's all said and done. That will be more than enough to hold the Conservatives to a minority, and to garner the NDP between 60-80 seats.

A fierce repudiation of the Liberals and the Bloc is in process, and will be locked in on Monday. The Tories will not get their coveted majority. 

And Jack Layton will be the only federal leader still in his job by this time next year.

When Life (or the Liberal Party) Hands You Oranges ...

Michael Ignatieff is feeling the squeeze.

Here's a man who knows his history, so let me put this in a way he can understand: the Germans learned in the world wars how difficult it can be to fight a war on two fronts. Eventually, the forces on either side of you get their machines working at full capacity, and your stretched resources cannot effectively put up a resistance on both flanks simultaneously.

This looks like the election when the left finally coalesces around an actual left-leaning national party. This phenomenon already took place on the right a decade ago, when the Reform/Alliance and Progressive Conservative forces made nice and united under Stephen Harper. With the reorientation of the progressive vote in Quebec spurring an Orange Crush now sweeping the nation towards a radical re-shifting of the political landscape, the Liberals look shell-shocked.

It didn't have to be this way. When Harper became leader of the Conservative Party, it was clear to me that any attempt to keep them out of power would require a leftist reaction from the Liberals. After Paul Martin lost the January 2006 election, the Grits were presented an opportunity to do just that. Bob Rae, the former NDP premier of Ontario, was seeking the leadership in a field that included Ken Dryden, Stephane Dion, Scott Brison, Ignatieff and others. He was clearly the way to go if a truly centre-left orientation was to take hold of the party. Ignatieff, though popular in some circles, did not have the internal support to win the leadership at a convention where his growth potential was viewed as very weak. Dion, though left-leaning himself, was not seen as a credible alternative by those who valued beating Harper above all else.

Well, you know what happened -- egos got in the way. Ignatieff couldn't admit he could not win and refused to do the sensible thing (throw his support behind Rae) because he was determined to humble his old university buddy. Rae fell off the ballot and Ignatieff got served by Dion.

In my mind, that is the root of what we are seeing today. At some point, disaffected left-leaning voters were always going to need somewhere to go that could push the Conservatives out of power. The Liberals were stuck in purgatory after the sponsorship scandal, and Harper was busy sucking up all the centre-right air in a bid to make his fledging party more palatable to the electorate. So the Liberals did the stupidest thing possible: pretended to be left-leaning while eventually moving to pursue a centre-right agenda.

This worked in the past, but people, the 20th century is so over.

The Liberals tanked under Dion, as predicted, and the party began the process of turfing him almost immediately after the debacle that was the 2008 election was over. But not soon enough to avoid the Coalition Crisis that very nearly saw him become Prime Minister. The Liberal brand took another hit.

The diversionary Dion experiment was time that could have been better spent re-establishing Rae's leadership credentials if Liberals had chosen him instead. I'm not going to pronounce judgement on Rae as a politician here; it's not the focus of my thoughts in this context. I'm simply pointing out that Rae could have provided the one thing the Liberals have lacked since 2004 -- credible clash with the Conservatives.

Dion clashed, that's for sure, but he clashed with everyone -- the Tories, the other opposition parties, the Liberal leadership, the electorate. But by comparison, Rae represented a brighter opportunity to stake out new ground in contrast to the Conservatives and a firmer foundation from which to rebuild the party internally. A Liberal party that chose to try and squeeze out a bigger space for itself on the centre-left would have been more successful with a guy who had more gravitas, statesmanlike credentials and campaigning experience than they ever were with Dion.

The party then chose Ignatieff as leader in May 2009 and squeezed Rae out again, this time without even bothering to have a true leadership contest. Rae was outmanouvred that time by a guy who didn't leave anything to chance while Dion was busy blowing his shot. The new leader immediately tried to force an election, failed, and the Liberal downward spiral continued.

Which leads us to the present moment. Ignatieff has always been hawkish on foreign affairs and defense issues. In many ways he is indistinguishable from Harper from a policy perspective. From 2004 to 2011, the progression of the Liberal leadership has been to try and take on the Tories on their turf. In the midst of all that, they have tried to tell progressives that their votes are necessary to stop Harper from gaining a majority of House seats, and so they should hold their noses and vote Liberal.

I always felt this was wrong-headed. For them to govern, I believe they should have staked out ground a little further left than that with a leader who is not a Harper clone or as flawed as Dion, then appeal to centrists who used to vote Progressive Conservative and ask them to return Canada to a state they could recognize. In that way, the 20-25% of Canadians that form Harper's hard-core base could never again get close to power. There are more votes in this configuration, and more potential avenues to power. I could never figure out how the Liberals couldn't see that.

Instead, they allowed whatever limited progressive credibility they had after Chretien left office be frittered away through the combination of ineptitude, infighting, awful election campaigns in 2005-06 and 2008, and parliamentary miscalculations and missteps. Now in this campaign, their leader is not viewed as truly progressive and their performance as a party during the campaign has been, to put it mildly, underwhelming. By taking on Harper following his rules, they were bound to lose from the start.

That's one of the main reasons the NDP is surging now. Jack Layton has remained consistent for years on what he wants to do, he has never wavered from his commitment to work with other parties in Parliament no matter what the electorate says, and he is the most credible progressive voice on the federal scene. His message has been more positive than the other parties, and more directly aimed at the wide swatch of lower and middle class voters concerned about Tory policies. For years he has been putting in work to create new avenues of support for the party, and has remained doggedly focused on becoming Prime Minister, an objective greeted with snorts of derision from most people until about 10 days ago. Now that the Green Party and Bloc vote have swung to him, and the polls are showing he's the only leader with momentum in the final days of a suddenly-fascinating campaign, the errors of past years have come home to roost for the Liberals.

The electorate is no longer chicken when it comes to voting NDP. The trends are firming up, and the NDP continues to grow in support, even in polls released today. There will be a big shift in voting patterns come Monday. It's no longer a question of if Layton will make big gains, but rather a question of how big.

I'm sure Bob Rae as leader of the Liberal Party during this time of radical rethinking of progressive electoral strategy would have made the Grits more competitive than the increasingly desperate and shrill Michael Ignatieff.

I believe we are witnessing the end as we know it of the most successful political party in the democratic world. The Liberal Party of Canada will live on after May 2 -- this is a prognosis, not an obituary. But if current polling numbers hold true to election day (and I believe they will), it may be a very long time before we see it rise to challenge for a majority government again.

Thank you, Liberals. Orange juice is my favorite drink anyway. I'll be sipping it liberally on Monday night.

The Mercer Effect

"If you look at these numbers, that would represent potentially a pretty interesting shift in the balance of power, certainly on the opposition benches. That balance of power is kind of in the hands of the youth vote right now."
- Jaideep Mukerji, vice-president of Angus Reid Public Opinion, commenting yesterday on April 26 polling results

Rick Mercer's now-famous rant challenging young people aged 18 to 24 to vote has had a shocking effect on this campaign. To the surprise of many, youth have mobilized through creating new groups focused on getting out the youth vote, utilizing social media and other means to push their message, and through the vote mob phenomenon sweeping across Canada's university campuses. Despite condescending criticism from "wise elders" who dismiss it all as just so much noise, the focused sharpness of the retorts to such talk, plus the massive shifts in recent polls, indicate Canada's youth are finally seeking to be heard en masse through increased political engagement.

We must wait until the votes are counted to see how many youth actually turn out to cast ballots, but the early indications are that the Conservatives should be concerned. Last year, fewer than 1 in 5 youth expressed support for Harper, and there's little reason to believe that's changed very much. So any significant increase in youth voter turnout is not going to fall into their column. However, it's tough to say how that will influence vote splits in competitive ridings given how unpredictable the campaign has become in last week.

One thing is certain, though -- something is afoot in the electorate, and unpredictable things will almost assuredly happen. Will Jack Layton become Leader of the Opposition? Will Stephen Harper succeed in winning a majority with a reduced percentage of the national vote from 2008? Will Michael Ignatieff still be the Liberal leader by Canada Day? Will Gilles Duceppe still be the Bloc leader by Victoria Day? And just how many young people will vote next Monday anyway?

Right now, as Mukerji posited yesterday, a sizeable factor in how the vote turns out is in the hands of Canada's youth. If they seize it, our politics will be forever altered.

Source:
http://anomalism.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d1ps0d

“It’s conventional wisdom of all political parties that young people will not vote. And the parties, they like it that way … so please, if you are between 18 and 25 and you want to scare the heck out of the people who run this country, this time around, do the unexpected. Take twenty minutes out of your day and do what young people all over the world are dying to do: vote.”
- Rick Mercer

The Rae Effect

Alright already. I've come to have enough of this foolishness.

Bob Rae was elected premier before most kids in university and college today were even born. While many of us remember his time at the head of Ontario's only NDP government, a sizeable portion do not.

The spectre of NDP government at the national level has nothing to do with the dearly departed Rae government when it comes to voters under the age of 35. It's just not their issue. It's been nearly 21 years since that government was elected. Older people need to wake up and stop talking about it like there's some ugly NDP gremlins hiding behind a door someplace, ready to blow up the Canadian economy.

The NDP has governed provincially in Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B.C. as well. Those provinces are doing just fine. The party had the poor timing of being elected in my home province during a very serious economic downturn that no government survived unscathed. The recession of the early 1990s led to some of the most searing pain ever experienced in Canada from a fiscal perspective -- a difficult economic time that resulted in the rebalancing of our collective priorities and a shift in our political thinking.

Running massive deficits became taboo. Competent fiscal management became the norm. And that happened for all parties across the spectrum, including the NDP.

To be as blunt as possible: the NDP in the provinces, as well as Canada's NDP, know that massive deficit financing will lead to electoral ruin, so they won't do it.

Ultimately, spending is all about priorities. The Harper Tories are the most spend-happy government in Canadian history, and managed to turn a healthy surplus into a massive deficit in less than five years. How? They made stupid tax cuts (GST), economically dubious tax cuts (corporate, specialized "boutique" credits), and significant spending increases (military, public services) all at the same time. Even a Dipper can do that math.

So I don't want to hear anything more about the NDP being irresponsible with the federal purse. While people speculate on what Dippers might do to tax and spend us into oblivion, the Tories are actually and actively undertaxing and spending us into oblivion.

Enough already about the bloody Rae government. Let's focus on the one we've got right now, and hold them to account. 

The Layton Effect

Leave it to the good people of Quebec to figure out how to break the logjam our federal politics had become.

The scene: A Stephen Harper led minority government many didn't elect and don't want to support remains in power largely on the strength of voters on the Prairies (who are statistically over-represented in Parliament), concentrated pockets of support around Vancouver, Quebec City and southern Ontario, and smatterings of seats in the Atlantic. The challengers, limited to traditional support bases in various urban centres across the country (Liberals and NDP) and suburban and rural Quebec (the Bloc) could not rally enough supporters and/or credibility to topple an increasingly arrogant and imperious Prime Minister.

The actors: When the writs were dropped, Gilles Duceppe led the Bloc into one more election (perhaps one too many?) in a province where the Liberals can't gain any traction due to past scandals, the Tories are limited by a left-leaning electorate and the NDP have typically been a non-factor. Most voters in the rest of the country expected more of the same -- an election about nothing, one that would lead to a similar Parliament to the one that was just dissolved.

But something funny happened on the way to history repeating itself. Humans intervened. 

I had been saying to friends before the campaign started that this one felt different. I believed something was going to change this time around. I didn't think it would be a massive late-campaign surge in NDP support, though. I was just as blindsided by that as anyone. But when you stop and think about it, it makes a lot of sense.

Irrespective of your own politics, try to think like a Quebecker for a moment:

The Harper government, by and large, doesn't represent you, or what you believe in. Quebec is filled with people who lean further left than most other Canadians, and have a stronger belief in the welfare state. The Prime Minister just isn't your kind of people, and you're baffled at how he manages to garner the levels of support he does in the rest of Canada. You'd love to see the Conservatives get tossed out, but your countrymen and women elsewhere in the country simply aren't getting it, in your view.

The Bloc Quebecois just celebrated 20 years of existence. Besides some small policy victories with minority governments under Paul Martin and then Harper, what the hell have they done, really? Out of desperation, they're now chirping about this election being a contrast between sovereigntists and federalists, and want you to believe a vote for them is the best way to represent Quebec federally. But the Bloc will never govern -- not as the lead party in government nor as a junior partner in a minority or coalition situation either. You feel the Prime Minister on one point -- the province needs a voice in government. But you know that voice will never be Duceppe's. Plus, you want to turn the referendum page and get on with your life. The constitutional debate is soooo 1995.

After the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, the Liberal brand is mud in your province. Michael Ignatieff is clearly not one of your own, and has done little to change your opinion of the Liberal Party. He hasn't been effective at promoting his platform, articulating a new vision for the country or at eviscerating the competition. Nothing he's done leads you to believe he's a strong leader, and his party acts as if they are entitled to a renewed shot at government. Maybe they need to sit it out one last time before they fully comprehend the message their 2006 defeat should have taught them.

That leaves the NDP. Their leader, Jack Layton, was born and raised in your province and sounds like you (at least the anglo you). His politics line up with yours better than any other party not named the Bloc. He's been working at getting around, getting to know your issues, and he's done a decent job at it. He's easily the most personable and positive of the federal leaders, plus he has an everyman charm you find endearing. He speaks your language, both literally and figuratively. In short, he's a leader you dig. Why not give him a chance?

Hence, having successfully made the case that Quebeckers do have a choice, the NDP's support in the province has skyrocketed. So much so, there's the real possibility they can win some seats in the province, and potentially elsewhere as well. If current trends hold, I figure the NDP should come out of the election with at least 10 Quebec seats, and more if Quebeckers cotton onto the idea of shifting their votes to a party recent polls suggest could be the Official Opposition with their support.

It puts the lie to Duceppe's claim that Quebec's voice can be best expressed by the Bloc, a party that has no chance of being the Official Opposition after May 2. It also has one other potential unintended consequence that, once people in the province think it over, might appeal to them:

Vote NDP in massive numbers, and Quebec might be the dominant province in an NDP-led government.

That's right. I said it.

If Quebeckers can read pollsters' seat projections (and they can), they may come to realize the Tories cannot govern if the NDP and Liberal caucuses combined form a majority in the House of Commons. Under the seat distribution scenario laid out by yesterday's EKOS survey, Harper's government could fall on its Throne Speech (or on its budget shortly thereafter), and the Governor General would most likely ask Layton to form a government. The Liberals, preoccupied with agonizing over whether or not to dump Ignatieff as their leader, would be in no position to object. The Bloc, reduced to parliamentary irrelevance, would be thrown into existential crisis. The NDP would then be handed its historic moment -- to govern the country in a minority situation, most likely propped up by the Liberals.

There's even the possibility of a formal agreement between the NDP and the Liberals, similar to the accord reached between the two parties at the provincial level in Ontario between 1987 and 1990.

Can the NDP hold onto its unprecedented status at this late stage in the electoral game? We shall have to watch over the next six days to find out. But one thing is certain -- if NDP is able to muscle the Bloc into a severely weakened state and become the largest federal party in Quebec, and then form the Official Opposition or a minority government in Ottawa, the national political dynamic will be forever changed.

All those people who mocked Layton earlier in the campaign for refusing to drop talk about becoming Prime Minister have been given their comeuppance. What once seemed unimaginable is now inching closer to the NDP Leader's grasp.

Hang on, Canada. This is getting really interesting.

David Johnston is a Smart Guy

I read Blake Batson's blog post about the choice facing Canadians voters on May 2: according to him, we must choose between a Harper majority or a coalition government. Hogwash. I encourage Mr. Batson to read my post from yesterday to figure out why the Liberals and NDP may in the end choose to permit the Tories to govern.

But in the event the government did fall shortly after introducing its Throne Speech or budget, the Official Opposition (probably the Liberals) would clearly have the right to seek the confidence of the House to govern the country, if invited to try by the Governor General.

Note I said if invited to try by the Governor General. Harper, bless his soul, chose David Johnston to replace Michaelle Jean in the vice-regal post so he could deal with just such a scenario. A constitutional expert, our head of state knows full well that it's Parliament who determines who becomes Prime Minister, and not the electorate. So does Harper. If Johnston says, "yo, Iggy, you wanna give this thing a shot?" why should the Liberals say no? And Jack Layton is right to observe that if a Tory minority government fell quickly “we shouldn't immediately go back to an election; that would be ridiculous.” The Governor General knows that too.

But under no circumstance I can see would the Liberals find it advantageous to invite the NDP into a coalition government. Why validate a party that's a major thorn in your side, currently bleeding some of your support in Quebec, making your life a living hell on the prairies and complicating things in B.C. (if mid-campaign polls are to be believed)? If any of these trends hold up on Election Day, why give the NDP a taste of power now, at the moment the Liberals will most need to bury them? It makes no strategic sense.

Canadians are smart. They can smell the manure pile Harper's shovelling from a long way off. As Douglas Bell wrote in the Globe and Mail this morning, the coalition dog won't hunt.

We have three choices -- believe Harper's ridiculousness, vote our consciences, or try to play the strategic voting game. Good luck with that, Canada. But Jack won't be in Cabinet by July. Ain't gonna happen.

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.

Afghan Detainees & The Principle of Public Accountability

In the Globe and Mail this morning, columnist Lawrence Martin reminds us of the difficulties Stephen Harper and the Tories may face if the Afghan detainee issue rears its head in the coming weeks. 

As Martin writes: "The issue, we recall, turns on whether Canadian officials knowingly handed over prisoners for torture by Afghan authorities, a potential violation of the Geneva Conventions. Mr. Harper’s government steadfastly refused to provide documents on the matter, but were ordered to do so a year ago by Speaker Peter Milliken. A special committee was then appointed to make sure any released materials wouldn’t compromise national security."

This committee is nearly ready to do a document dump. The Bloc Quebecois, before the government fell in the House of Commons, forced a resolution requiring the special committee to come back with information for public consumption by April 15. In addition, the Military Police Complaints Commission is preparing a report on the matter. Both processes are moving along, and it is possible both releases could take place before voting day on May 2.

Unsurprisingly, the Tories will do just about anything to prevent this information from seeing the light of day. They have gone to court to limit the scope of the Commission report, and Liberals suspect the Tories will file a motion in court to delay release of documents from the parliamentary committee. If successful, they will have neutered the issue that, I feel, is the one that will finally set the Tories firmly on defence on their bread-and-butter issue - accountability. This government has become skilled at not being accountable while preaching it at every stop. If you're a criminal, you need to face the music. If you're in a political party, raise your own money and stop looking for a public subsidy.

But if you're the government, shouldn't you answer to Parliament? Shouldn't you listen to the opinions of the parliamentary officers you appointed to monitor federal budgets, the lobbyists on Parliament Hill, integrity in the House, and to audit federal financial statements? The list of actions over the past five years by members of the government against a myriad of officials to obscure the truth, distort facts, mislead the public, keep Parliament in the dark, cover up misdeeds and hypocritically reward friends is breathtaking.

Only the Afghan detainee issue, which also brings up the second prorogation of Parliament (the one that led to open public protests against Harper's anti-democratic behaviour) has the potential to stick Tory feet firmly in the cynical fire they've stoked for five years. If either of these public airings of dirty laundry take place (especially if it happens before the English debate), I would hope that Canadians would finally sit up and pay attention to the abuses of this government.

After all, this is the government that originally pledged to be different than the Liberals back in the 2005-06 campaign. Why have you not held them to their word, Canada? And because we collectively haven't done it, what does that say about us? Why do Conservatives get a free pass on violating the Geneva Conventions and then covering it up for years, while the Liberals paid for the sponsorship scandal?

I don't vote Grit or Tory as a rule, so I'm no fan of the Liberals either. But fair is fair, people. The time has come to punish the Tories for treating us like unprincipled naïve fools. I hope my fellow Canadians will finally see the light.

Whither Quebec, Mr. Harper?

At the end of a very weird first week of the election campaign, a few cracks are showing in the Conservative juggernaut. When the election writs were dropped, the general consensus was that the Liberals were way behind, and were perhaps a little deluded for pushing for the fall of the Harper government in the first place. After all, the leader was seen as being something of a dud, the Tories were edging towards majority government territory in the polls, the NDP were polling fairly well and the party internally was cash poor and in organizational disarray.

Well, so much for that theory. Since Harper made two crucial decisions in the opening week, the Liberals have already started to pick up some ground. The first was the Harper-initiated call for a head-to-head debate with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. Perhaps Harper hasn't been paying attention, but Iggy's been feeling sprightly and feisty so far. He picked up the insinuation right away and goaded Harper, daring him to actually agree to the fight. Harper bailed out faster than the US government sank cash into its financial sector. The misstep made the Prime Minister look silly, and emboldened the Liberals. Score one for the Grits.

The other decision deals with Newfoundland, which I'll deal with in a moment. But there is a third factor that has now come into play, and this is Harper's insistence on talking up the "dangerous coalition" that will take over the country if he doesn't win a majority.

First of all, minority governments rule by coalition decision-making, by design. Nothing got passed in the last Parliament unless one of the opposition parties in the House of Commons supported the government on a vote. So vote by vote, informal coalitions were formed to ensure the work of the House resulted in legislation being approved. No, the coalition is not formal. But Canadians wanted to see the parties work together, by consensus, and come up with policies that reflect the compromise our nation is famous for abroad. But no, the Tories don't want compromise - it's not in their DNA. They'd rather rule by fiat. And so that's why the government eventually antagonized the House to the point of losing power on a vote that found them in contempt of Parliament.

(By the way, don't listen to any Tory who says the government fell on its budget. That is a bald-faced, 100%, backed-up-by-the-facts lie. There never was a vote on that budget, and anyone who insinuates otherwise cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything else in this election.)

So now, Newfoundland. Harper went with a cheque in his hand to St. John's to tell the good people on the Rock that the feds would guarantee "a loan to finance $4.2 -billion of the $6.2-billion [Lower Churchill] project to run an underwater power line from Newfoundland to New England." The Tories did this in order to curry favour with voters on the island, who shut the party out in the 2008 election when then-NL Premier Danny Williams campaigned against them due to a squabble over equalization payments. This time, the Tories need those seats in pursuit of their elusive majority government.

Then Quebec started squawking. Premier Jean Charest condemned the promise, arguing the federal government has never intervened in the power market and should refrain from doing so in this case (lest it damage the profitability and prospects of Hydro-Quebec). All the parties in Quebec City united behind the premier, and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe also fell in line. The united front from the nationalists and federalists in the province prompted Harper to promise resolution of an outstanding issue with Quebec over a financial settlement on the HST. The deal, which Quebec claims will cost the federal government $2.2 billion, has been unsuccessfully negotiated for the past 14 months, with no resolution possible until after the election ends.

Basically, the Tories are trying to buy off Newfoundlanders with the loan guarantee for Lower Churchill, and then decided they'd better try to buy off Quebeckers by extending the HST olive branch (though that issue was going to be decided eventually anyway).

Never mind that the Tories had the chance to set the money aside for the Quebec HST deal when they tabled their budget a couple weeks ago. This is an election, dammit, and they have to win!

Never mind that if they'd included the money in the budget, there's a chance the Bloc would have supported the document, and there wouldn't be an election going on right now at all.

Never mind that the Lower Churchill deal is being done in such a way to infuriate Quebec, which built its enviable infrastructure to transport energy to other jurisdictions without a cent of federal cash.

There's an election to be won, dammit!

None of this looks good for the Tories. It's only the end of the first week and already they're starting to look desperate outside their core constituency in Saskatchewan and Alberta. While the Newfoundland deal reaffirmed its commitment to the principles its base embraces, how is the hasty promise to Quebec to settle the HST issue playing in Calgary? As Harper tries to balance competing interests in different parts of the country while projecting an image of competent benevolent demagoguery, the chicken coop is slowly filling up.

As I said to friends before the campaign started, I never viewed Election 2011 as a slam dunk for Harper. I think the Tories are starting to realize they are in a real battle, and that perhaps they underestimated the competition. They are trying to stage manage a majority government, but the stage was never set the way they'd imagined it before the campaign started. They have looked static and reactionary, while the Liberals have been more flexible, more open, and far more united than first advertised.

The NDP is perceived to be struggling thus far, a situation that (on its face) benefits the Liberal Party. The more Jack Layton is sidelined, the greater the chance left-of-centre voters will hold their nose and vote Grit to stop Harper's drive for a majority. But this reality is fraught with danger for the opposition, for the NDP is better positioned in some places (such as parts of Atlantic Canada and in Saskatchewan) to defeat the Tories than the Liberals are. A collapse of NDP support on the prairies may make the majority Harper seeks more attainable.

All of this points to a campaign that is only now starting to capture the imaginations of Canadians. Over the next few weeks the seeds of trends that are trying to emerge now will shake themselves out. Not all of them point to a strong Tory government. The people running Harper's campaign should be very wary heading into Week 2. There are nascent signs that the electorate is more restless than they've banked on, with the possibility of a reduced minority becoming more real by the day, unless they respond. Are they paying attention? Are they listening? Can they sense the rumblings and react appropriately?

Sit back and watch. We're about to find out.