How opposition leaders handle scandal

There’s more than one way to sink a government, so there’s more than one way to lead an opposition party in the legislature.

Two very different styles have been on display in the opening weeks of the Nova Scotia legislature’s spring session. One is determined to cast doubt on the Liberal government’s probity. The other attempts to bring the failures of government policy into sharp focus.

Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Houston has embraced the leader of the Opposition’s traditional role as the government’s critic-in-chief. He isn’t a bit shy about going toeto-toe with Premier Stephen McNeil over what the Tories want Nova Scotians to see as the government’s ethical lapses and deceit.

NDP Leader Gary Burrill mostly eschews the scandalous and potentially scandalous in favour of advancing his party’s belief that the government’s social and economic policies are failing a vast number of Nova Scotians. The NDP would say that’s the real scandal.

The one constant in both approaches is the opposition politicians’ perspective that the government can’t get much right, just as members on the government side of the House seem certain it can do no wrong.

Proponents of the theory that governments aren’t elected but defeated will tell you that Houston is doing what he ought to do. That is, chip away at public trust in the government. The tactic obviously assumes that the PCs are next in line to form the government.

Most governments have a “best before” date, after which they seem to accumulate more shoddy baggage and less public affection.

In the latter years of the long government of John Buchanan (1978-90), it was plagued by scandals and hints of scandal. Frustrated by a barrage of innuendo, an exasperated Buchanan cabinet minister shouted across the floor of the legislature that, “we’ve heard the allegations, and we know who the alligators are.”

Colourful quotes from colourful politicians no longer feature much in the proceedings of Nova Scotia’s legislature. The business of the place, which is primarily partisan politics, is mostly done with a dour demeanor these days.

The leader of the official Opposition owns the top spot in question period. If there’s a hint of scandal in the air, Houston either leads with that, or risks losing first claim to the issue. The PC leader takes no such risks because, like it or not, exposing the unsavoury underside of the government — real or perceived — offers certain political benefits, not least of which is a boost in public profile.

It may be a failing of the

Shelburne:

trade — and a dangerous generalization — but journalists are attracted to scandal and the whiff of scandal, while their eyes glaze over during earnest debate on public policy.

The risk in muckraking is that the raker's public persona will become defined by what his political opponents would label scandal-mongering. An opposition party has to weigh the risk against the reward, and the Tories have obviously calculated that having their leader rake muck is a risk worth taking.

By contrast, the NDP leader's focus is almost exclusively on what he views as the government's flimsy policies and worse record in supporting Nova Scotians who need government support. Where Houston views the government’s pliable scruples as its Achilles’ heel, Burrill finds more fault with the Liberals’ heart.

Burrill’s approach draws less media attention. Exposing the flaws and failures of the government’s poverty reduction or housing programs can’t compete with accusations of malfeasance.

It’s not right, but the plight of poor kids is less newsworthy than an allegation that the government buried information about one of its members driving drunk.

The different tactics affect the dynamics in the legislature, too. Liberal MLAs are less sensitive about criticism of government policies and programs than they are when its integrity is challenged. Animosity between Houston and McNeil is, at times, palpable, while McNeil can be almost deferential to Burrill.

The legislature serves up most brands of political pugilism. When the fight’s about policy, Marquis of Queensberry rules seem to apply.

When ethics or integrity are questioned, it’s a bare-knuckle brawl.