Liberals' Strength Surprised Me

Some rambling thoughts about the election. As I watched from the perch of political analyst for Hudson Mack and "A" television in Victoria, I found myself muttering: Can't anyone in this country do simple math? There was the National Windbag, Jack Layton claiming victory, given as much, if not more coverage than the winner and runner-up, though he only had 29 seats! As NDP candidates won, we heard gup like "We'll be the balance of power", "We'll have a significant impact on government policy" and, "the government needs us if it wants to get its programs passed."

In fact, the NDP are not even a player. They are the fourth party, utterly unable to affect any vote in the House (only the Liberals combined with the Bloc can bring the government down), and will be scrambling for the occasional chance in question period.

Negative ads worked

As Churchill once said about prophets, they must have "the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year - and have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen." As one who said that a majority government was in reach of the Tories, I must follow Churchill's rule and tell you what went wrong.

The big surprise, to me anyway, was the strength of the Liberals. I had a sense of it the previous Thursday, when a poll from Ontario showed the Tories losing ground. I would argue (feebly, perhaps) that when I made the prediction, I was right. I badly underestimated the impact the last week's Liberal ads would have.

Playing the anti-American card, the Liberals clearly persuaded many Canadians that a vote for the Tories was a vote for George Bush. I also forgot that many BC seats, normally in NDP country, went Reform in their heady days and were inherited by the Tories. This time, there being no Reform Party and with many of their MPs gone as well, it went back to business as usual in BC.

Tough 'to do list'

Mr. Harper has some problems.

First he must select a cabinet and, contrary to what the schoolbooks of the nation tell us, competence is well down the list of criteria. Coming ahead are past loyalty, gender, ethnic mix, regional considerations and the rule first stated by Lyndon Johnson about the FBI's J. Edgar Hoover, which in effect gave as a political maxim that sometimes you're better off having inside the tent peeing out rather than outside peeing in. If the minister is competent too, as unlikely as that is, so much the better.

High on his "what to do" list is what role does Peter MacKay, the deputy leader, play - if any. I think Harper would love to dump him, but probably Lyndon Johnson's maxim applies.

Another problem has been much ameliorated by the election result. Because of the makeup of the House, and the fact that several Christian fundamentalists lost, the new prime minister now has no fear that a "definition of marriage" motion will succeed - but, to keep a promise he must hold one. Does he do it quickly and get it behind him, or later when it could revive a political issue he really doesn't need? I think the sooner the better, thus putting the issue out of harm's way.

The Tory leader has another problem - his ten MPs from Quebec. Past governments, ever since Trudeau took his famous walk in the snow, have been bribing, or attempting to bribe, Quebec, not just with money - I could live with that - but power. That policy is a slippery slope that leads to one destination - Rene Levesque's "sovereignty-association" or as former BC Premier Bill Bennett called it, "divorce with bedroom privileges". Mr. Harper will be faced with a Jean Charest, demanding more lest the PQ come to power, the ten Quebec Tories demanding more (or else) and his own election pledges.

Remember Joe Clark

If Stephen Harper is smart he can govern for at least two years and build up the strength of his party. Because the Liberals are in the throes of healing and getting a new leader, and Gilles Duceppe has his work cut out for him regaining his popularity and power, Harper can almost - not quite - but almost govern is if he has a majority.

Unless Stephen Harper, like Joe Clark* (and commentators on election night), can't count, he has a glorious chance to secure his place in his party and his party's place in the nation.

*In December 1979, then Prime Minister Joe Clark, with a minority government, didn't make peace with the Creditistes, lost a confidence vote (the budget), had to resign then got thumped by a Liberal party that couldn't believe its luck.

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