Categories: Andrew Coyne, Books

The best man for the job—well, the best one around

His approval rating, like his party’s, has slid, but Stephen Harper is here to stay

by Andrew Coyne on Monday, May 4, 2009 12:15pm - 89 Comments

But since the fall the results have been little short of catastrophic. The calling of an early election, in defiance of his own fixed-term legislation; the decision to campaign without a platform, even in the shadow of an oncoming economic crisis; his own erratic performance as a campaigner, notably with regard to Quebec; the fall economic statement, with its ill-judged lunge for the opposition’s vitals; the desperate, borderline unconstitutional lengths to which he went to stave off a vote of no-confidence; the sudden lurch into deficit in January’s budget, the enthusiastic embrace of corporate subsidies, the massive increase in spending—all this has bewildered the government’s supporters, even as it has alienated swing voters.

But. With all his faults, who is there to replace him? Leave aside the matter of how he could be replaced. What alternative is there for the Conservatives? Who could command the same degree of confidence? Answer: no one. It is perhaps the strongest indictment of Harper’s leadership that he has recruited so few people of stature to serve with him, and afforded those he has so little opportunity to shine. But the fact remains: he is by far the Conservatives’ strongest horse. By far. Peter MacKay? Don’t make me laugh. Jim Prentice? Don’t make me weep. Jim Flaherty has performed capably enough as finance minister, but has probably risen as far as his abilities will take him. Jason Kenney, talented as he is, is not nearly ready. After that it’s a long way down.

Besides, the Tories aren’t in all that bad shape. After a rough few weeks, in the middle of a recession, with Ignatieff in mid-honeymoon, they trail by only a couple of points. And they have not yet begun to fight. Ignatieff is vulnerable on any number of fronts—his latest book, with its fantastic, and fantastically expensive, musings about high-speed rail and four-laning the Trans-Canada and a “national energy strategy,” has added several more—and the Tories still enjoy a wide advantage in fundraising and organization, notwithstanding recent Liberal gains.

Certainly there is no need for the Tories to panic. However excited the media may become at every squiggle in the polls, and whatever brave noises the Liberals might be making about defeating the government, there isn’t going to be an election any time soon: certainly not this spring, probably not next fall, quite possibly not until 2012. It isn’t that the Liberals are bluffing, though they probably are—they can’t possibly afford another election, so soon after the last. It is simply that the Liberals, on their own, aren’t in a position to provoke one. To defeat the government, given current numbers in Parliament, requires all three opposition parties to vote together. Which means all three have to see it to their advantage to bring the government down, at the same time. Which almost never happens. The same surge in the polls that has the Liberals talking election has the NDP deathly afraid of one. Short of a total collapse in their own vote, the Conservatives can expect to be maintained in power by the divisions among their rivals, almost indefinitely.

And the one thing that would be most likely to precipitate such a collapse would be if Harper were to leave. If his leadership seems to set a ceiling on Tory support, his departure could very well knock out the floor. Not only is there no obvious heir apparent, but it is far from clear whether anyone else could hold the party together. More than anyone else, Stephen Harper built this party. Even today, he dominates it. It is hard to think of anyone else in the party who could preserve the still- fragile truce between the two factions, if only by sheer intimidation. No leader is indispensable, but he comes as close to it as any.

Harper has plenty of time to turn things around. If he can learn to temper his partisan instincts, to put aside the gamesmanship, to play instead to his strengths—his command of policy, his powers of persuasion, his sturdy self-assurance—and above all, to return to a steady, consistent approach to governing, there is no reason he cannot win the voters’ confidence, if not their affection. He will never be loved. But leaders do not have to be loved to be successful.

And if not? If Harper fails to reach out, to grow, to change? Then that would leave the Conservatives in a predicament: can’t win with him. Can’t win without him.

Pages: 1 2

Tags: approval rating, Stephen Harper

More by Andrew Coyne

keith c

Mr. Coyne, this is an ok column mostly, but it’s lazy when you say Prentice makes you weep. Why? MacKay’s lightweight factor is well known but Prentice is much more accomplished and has better French. He seems the logical next leader. The main thing against him that I can see is that he’s too much the nice guy in the Paul Martin or Joe Clark mold without Harper’s strategic sense and killer instinct… ie. every Liberal’s favorite Tory.
But doesn’t seem enough to make anyone weep.

Geoff Small

I would weep, too – for the death of true conservatism as it is helmed by yet another leader from Calgary whose perspective doesn’t seem to go outside Alberta (there IS conservatism outside that province, CPC ppl….)

Robin

I normally agree with Mr. Coyne. However, I believe that he’s way off base in thinking that Harper is the best person to lead Canada. Where exactly? Harper’s lack of substantive public policy in conjunction his lofty arrogance and misjudgment leaves me wondering where exactly the country is headed. Harper’s time is over. It’s simply a matter of when. I can’t wait until this portly regressive conservative bids, Adieu.
seaandthemountains

Sometime I have no idea where you are coming from.

“Jim Prentice? Don’t make me weep. Jim Flaherty has performed capably enough as finance minister…”

By all accounts, Prentice is a very competent Minister, capable of handling the details of his portfolio and grasp the big picture… a talent Harper himself seems to increasingly failing to hold down.

In contrast, Flaherty misrepresented Canada’s budget deficit last year, as he had previously done in Ontario and delivered a catastrophic budget update in November. Even if it was, as has been suggested completely at Harper’s behest, doing so at is was shows little in the way of good judgment and not steering his boss to safer waters speaks little of being competent at his pay grade or above it.
JF

I dunno Andrew,

I don’t think an election is as far-fetched as you make it sound. Yes, All the opposition parties would have to agree to bring down the gov’t but I can’t imagine the Bloc seat count going down much (Offsetting loses to the Liberals in the Montreal suburbs and gains from the conservatives) and if voting with the Tories was a bitter pill for Grits I can’t imagine how gut wrenching it would be for the Dippers. As for the Liberals… yes the Tories have the Fundraising and Organizational advantage right now but maybe they’d prefer to go sooner before Harper has a chance to use that to inflict a negative brand on Ignatieff ala Dion. Not saying it’ll happen, I imagine you’re right and it won’t, but I can see scenario’s where it does.

BTW… Why would Jim Prentice make you weep? He seems like a pretty competant Minister to me. I’d have trouble envisioning him winning a Tory Leadership contest but that doesn’t seem like it’s cause for you to ‘weep’. What gives?

Geoff Small

RE: weeping over Prentice – his very candidacy would send the wrong message (i.e. Harper’s clone in the Calgary riding next door). That’s what gives.
I agree with much of your assessment about a pending election. When an old Liberal legend like Cretien tells Liberals to go on the campaign trail sooner than later, it carries a LOT of weight in that party. Barring Duceppe making an about-face come the end of June (about that Iggy-mocking “hole in the head” comment in January), this government will be defeated. You can count on the NDP to vote with their principles (even if its veiled partisanship) rather than what is politically wise – like they did when they brought the Martin government down. Sure, Cap’n Jack gained some seats, but he lost the ear of the PMO when Harper took the job. I trust he won’t give up the opportunity to have a better relationship with the next Liberal government, and make it come sooner lest he be remembered as the NDP leader who led them from dictating Liberal budget bills to languishing in political irrelevancy under Conservative governments.

Dieter Sprockets

Harper put Canada back on the map. Under the Liberals, we were in a downward tailspin based upon self delusion and irrelevance.

Jarrid

I agree, also Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, said today that the recession will likely end this year. If Harper whethers the reception, I don’t see Harper clone Michael Ignatieff being much of a threat.

Sean Stokholm

whethers the reception = weathers the recession?

kody

One will note that the further we are from an election the “closer” the polls get.

Because the question becomes a more general proclivity issue rather than an intended course of action in other then abstract terms.

Well out from the election Harper and Dion were also neck and neck.

Then folks had to make a real choice.

He’s here to stay alright.

kody

Condescending, out of touch, largely absent from Canada most of his adult life, academic elite,

v.

Harper?

Won’t even be close.

Harper’s here for the long term alright.

kc

Kody…you’re back…nice to see you. Nice to see that you enjoy being wrong as much as you always did. Aren’t you supposed to learn something when they send you out into the wilderness like that? Didn’t you see the light, or anything?

willie719

Just admit it Coyne. You want to be conservative leader. But since you can’t have it, you have to bash Harper, once again. I know, you can’t jeopardize your real job on the CBC with any form of praise for the Conservatives. Another phony article. Chretien utilized hyper partisan attacks, but he got away with it because of the mostly liberal media. Imagine Harper grabbing a protestor by the tooth and breaking them like Chretien. Imagine Harper in power when Rwanda occurred. Imagine Harper in power when he had a majority, and then two and a half years later called another election for no other reason that to defeat the new Stockwell Day rookie leader. Imagine Harper missing a world leader’s funeral because he was skiing, and then blaming the military. On and on I could go. But Harper is the egotistical, one rule, iron fisted dictator. What a joke.
kc

“Harper has plenty of time to turn things around. If he can learn to temper his partisan instincts, to put aside the gamesmanship, to play instead to his strengths—his command of policy, his powers of persuasion, his sturdy self-assurance—and above all, to return to a steady, consistent approach to governing, there is no reason he cannot win the voters’ confidence, if not their affection. He will never be loved. But leaders do not have to be loved to be successful.”

AC, you make a good arguement, but this is meant ironically – right? I wouldn’t say you’re grasping at straws here, so much as trying to make bricks from staws that you can’t grasp.

peimac13

Looking at Harper’s PMO entourage, he needs to return his old formula. Have people present that are allowed to disagree with you. Make some of them a more progressive strain (PC’S; yes we still exist). Go back to taking punches in return for letting the opposition beating themselves up. ( It was fun to watch.)
Personally I don’t know what Andrew Coyne’s rant on lack of future leaders is anyways. The smart ones know that party leaders eat their own when threatened.

DianeG

While all leaders need to exert some control over members of their party, particularly on crucial votes, Harper muzzles his own members to such an extent that sooner or later, there will be rebellion from within the ranks. His need to centralize more and more power within the PMO is not helpful either.

Has he done some things right? Sure, but not nearly enough of them. I’d like to see parliament do what it is supposed to do – damn, I must be an idealist.
sapphireandsteel

wow, comment wankathon
Nick

Whoah Whoah Whoah.

Though the Conservatives can’t win without Harper, we have to remember that this party has a strong history of ripping out their own jugular which can only be made worse by the fact that the Conservatives aren’t really one party, they’re two. He won’t be forced out by the party as PM, but if he loses an election, he’s gone. It’s also nice to remember that just because the Conservatives have more money, that doesn’t mean the voters are stupid. Quebec and Ontario and the Maritimes have been burned by Harper one too many times; trying to regain leads in provinces that have normally distrusted the Conservatives in previous elections may be a little too difficult and as we all know, elections are won and lost in Ontario and Quebec. The battle may already be over if he loses most of his seats in Quebec due to the extremity of the attacks against the province during last years political crisis(as the polls suggest). That money doesn’t even help now. Conservative ads have been on radio stations for the past 2 years which shows that Canadians aren’t pawns to attack ads. Besides, the Liberals don’t need to spend money on attack ads when there are negative stories in the press every day. As for the west, who cares, they’re politically irrlelevant as we all know which way they’ll be voting anyways.

All in all, this entire article sounds like a depressed conservative trying to reassure himself that nothing bad is going to happen while he’s walking up the steps to the gallows.