Iggy's (continuing) problem, Harper's opportunity

by Andrew Coyne on Sunday, March 27, 2011 11:33am - 113 Comments

As others have pointed out, and as I’ve said myself, Ignatieff’s formal disavowal of any post-election coalition with the NDP and the Bloc does not mean he has sworn off trying to form a government with their support.

Indeed, if Harper does not win a majority, that is the almost certain result: though it’s always possible Harper might try to strike a deal with them himself, and not impossible they would accept, the greater probability by far is that a Conservative minority government would soon be defeated in the House. Depending on the numbers, and assuming Ignatieff could give the Governor General some assurance, sans coalition, of its stability, a Liberal minority government would then follow.

That’s fine. It’s how the system works. But it still presents Ignatieff with a problem, and Harper with an opportunity. The problem for Iggy is similar, though less acute, to that which bedeviled him so long as coalition talk was in the air. His strategy for winning left-leaning voters, who might otherwise vote NDP, depends upon insisting that they must vote Liberal to keep the Tories out — that unless the Liberals win the most seats, they are doomed to be governed by the Conservatives. But if in fact the Conservatives can be removed from power without giving the Liberals more seats — if the other parties can combine to defeat them in the House and put the Liberals in government in their place — then the NDP-leaning voter can vote Dipper in good conscience, and the traditional Liberal fear campaign loses its potency.

To be sure, Ignatieff can plead with voters to give him enough seats to persuade the Governor General to call upon him: without the cement of a coalition deal, he’ll need some other means of proving his ability to provide stable government. But it doesn’t have quite the same dire appeal as Us or Them.

That’s why Iggy is so reluctant to talk about what would happen if the Liberals don’t win the most seats. (Even the no-coalition pledge neglects to mention it, an elision which at first appeared as if it might have been intended to provide an escape hatch, but which I am accepting the party’s word does not.) And that’s why it’s perfectly fair game for Harper to talk it up. He just has to be less hysterical about it.

It’s not a matter of such parliamentary transfers of power, by a vote of the House rather than a vote of the people, being “illegitimate” — an argument he is in no position to maintain. And he’ll have a hard time keeping up the argument that Ignatieff is simply lying through his teeth for five weeks. The point is, he doesn’t need to. All he needs to do is point out that the most probable alternative to a Conservative majority is not a Liberal majority, but a Liberal minority, in cahoots with the NDP and the Bloc. It needn’t be a coalition, with New Democrats in cabinet and all that, but it would still very likely involve some sort of deal that would pull the Liberals to the left — particularly if the Liberals do not possess even the plurality of seats in the House, and must pitch the Governor General on their ability to hold a government together. (Of course, if by some miracle the Liberals seemed headed for a majority, that argument would be moot. But then Ignatieff would face a different problem: NDP switchers defecting back to the left to force him to work with the Dips.)

That’s Harper’s appeal to centre-right voters: Us or All of Them. But it also has the virtue of reminding left-wing voters of their options. And if he doesn’t, you may be sure Layton and Duceppe will. Iggy may have put the coalition monkey to bed, but he still has a problem on his hands.

CODA: The problem facing Harper until now has been this: so long as the choice appeared to be between a Conservative majority and a Conservative minority, a certain number of centre-right voters preferred the latter. That’s one reason he’s been unable to get above 40% in the polls.

But the election presents an opportunity to recast that choice, since it presumably removes the option of a Conservative minority: such a government would almost certainly be defeated at the first opportunity. So now Harper can present the choice as one between a Conservative majority and — on present standings — a Liberal minority, heavily dependent on the NDP and the Bloc.

That sort of government might sound perfectly fine to a lot of voters, but not to the ones he needs: centre-right, Lib-Con switchers. The ones who until now have been opting for a Conservative minority. He’s got to impress upon them that that’s no longer an option.

Bookmark and Share
  • BCer in Mtl

    We can always start a drinking game, every time we hear 'COALITION' from Harper, take a swig.

    But first make sure you give your car keys to someone not playing the game.

  • orval

    Put more succinctly, what Harper is saying to Rest of Canada is: the only way to stop the Bloc from forcing the federal government to grant even more concessions and money to Quebec at the expense of the other provinces is a majority Conservative Government. A vote for the "Coalition" is a vote for the Bloc Quebecois.

    I just returned from a trip to one of the Western provinces and this point resonates. Everyone I spoke to has noticed Ignatieff promising federal funding to the Quebec City hockey arena (sorry, centre for arts and culture).

  • Nicholas Panagopoulos

    First of all, it is 2 billion NOT five. Secondly, Duceppe is only asking for the same treatment Ontario got when it harmonized its sales tax with the GST. Ontario got just over 2 billion, some of it being given back to Ontarians as a rebate.

    Really, you should get your facts straight before going on stupid diatribe about Duceppe and Mr Harper's so-called leadership abilities.

    • KRB

      It was 2.2B just for the HST. The whole bill was over $10B, asking for compensation all the way back to the Ice Storm!!!!

      Basically he didn't want to support Harper's budget … made that clear enough!

  • Trudeau lover

    it's clear the media are in the same boat as their Liberal, Separatist comrades in trying to explain away the Separatists having power in the PMO. American Iggo and the Separatists are campaigning together, because Duceppe needs the Liberals to win enough seats to keep the Separatist cause alive and wealthy, with taxpayer welfare. Iggo and the Liberals are at an all time low in the polls and yet they force an unnecessary election because the coalition fix is in, and as much as the Liberals, Separatists, Commies and their media comrades try and create a fog of disinformation and excuses it won't work. The media and the Liberals and Separatists should stick to manufacturing "cultural wars" and divide and conquer tactics that worked so effectively for Trudeau and quit trying to fool everyone with the preposterous claim that there is no Liberal Separatist coalition, and if there was, it really isn't that strange of a concept.

  • prescott

    C = Corrupt
    R = Reformer
    A = Alliance
    P = Parasites

    C = COALITION of
    R = Reformers
    A = Alliance
    P = Progressive Conservative

    C = Contempt of Canadians (and Parliament)
    R = Rabid Right-Wing Republicans
    A = Anti-tolerance
    P = Parasitic

  • http://twitter.com/scrabblegal5 @scrabblegal5

    Dear Mr. Prescott: Your churlish name-calling is not appreciated. Let's keep this blog site respectful, as was the original intent. Let your displeasure be felt at the polling station.

  • KRB

    D
    U
    M
    B

From Macleans