Liberal Panic

Back in olden times, British troops would form a square and, with the incredible discipline they had, were often able to beat off much larger and more powerful armies. The trouble came, of course, when Fuzzy Wuzzy, as Kipling called him, broke that square, causing pandemonium.

The federal Liberals look like the broken square.

Once impregnable, always loyal to one another, always consistent with their message, we now see a party divided and in near panic. When you see leaders making policy on the fly as Martin did in the last debate with his plan to abolish the "Notwithstanding" clause, you know there's trouble in River City.

Sponsorship sinkhole

There is no doubt that the Sponsorship scandal has hurt, but perhaps it wasn't the scandal that hurt so much as the way it was handled. Jean Chretien was of the old school which says "never explain … never apologize". He would have simply stonewalled; saying it was a matter for the police. Paul Martin, a more honest man than Chretien (admittedly, that's damning with faint praise) and sure that he personally wouldn't have to wear any of it, appointed a one-man commission with a broad mandate. Chretien knew that it was better to have a party united facing bad news than one divided. Martin is clearly the better man who deserves our praise for facing up to the trouble, but Chretien is the better politician.

What has hurt Martin most with the Gomery Report is that it damns the Liberal party, not just a few in it. It makes it clear that the Sponsorship mess was not caused by one or two mavericks but by the Liberal Party.

No issues, please

There has been, I think, another fundamental flaw in Liberal strategy. Paul Martin was advised by those who are supposed to know about these things to make this a two man slugfest and, as much as possible, avoid issues. When then Prime Minister Kim Campbell said that "an election was no place to discuss issues" she was right in the sense that this certainly was not the Canadian way.

Paul Martin's plan of attacking Mr. Harper has, at least, injected a bit of irony into the campaign. For there was Mr. Martin, in your living room at the last English-speaking debate, waving his hands saying "enough personal attacks, let's talk about the issues" on the eve of his party releasing a series of ads which were nothing but vicious personal attacks on Stephen Harper.

There's another factor at work here. Liberal strategists banked on Stephen Harper of 2006 being the same as Stephen Harper of 2005. He isn't. He appears more statesmanlike and much cooler. He's had time to get experience and gain control of his party. Why, at one point of the debate the man actually smiled!

One of the moments that demonstrated the new Harper was when Martin, off the top of his head and certainly without any advance notice to his party, suddenly announced he would "by constitutional means" get rid of the "Notwithstanding" clause and challenged Harper to help him. Far from flustered - as most Liberals watching were - Harper simply stated that the present constitutional balance looked to him to be pretty good.

Placing my bet

I personally say a pox on all your 2 ½ houses. I am not a Conservative, and certainly no fan of Stephen Harper; I consider the Liberal party to be the root of most of our problems of national unity; and I regard the NDP, in small numbers, as good for the political soul but, mercifully unelectable in large numbers.

Voting as I have in the advance poll (I'll be covering the election with "A" channel in Victoria) I gave the Green Party another $1.75 from the federal election fund by helping them get past the threshold of two percent and entitled to the money.

As I see it, unless there is a major shift in voter preference in the last week brought on by a scandal that matters or an outrageous statement by Harper or his people, Stephen Harper will be the next prime minister and may even have a majority.

Rafe Mair writes a Monday column for The Tyee. His website is www.rafeonline.com.