Coalition zombie is back and Tories are loving it
The Conservative attack ad pretty much writes itself
Predictions are preposterous at the best of times, but I predict Nathan Cullen will come to regret saying the NDP’s No. 1 priority is to topple the Tories.
Cullen, the MP for Skeena-Bulkley Valley in British Columbia, said Liberal voters are as fed up with Stephen Harper as New Democrats and that, by losing their nerve during the coalition crisis of 2008, they made a “huge mistake” by not ousting Harper’s government.
But the tactical error is Cullen’s. By suggesting a combination of New Democrats and Liberals should bring down a Harper minority government at the first opportunity, he has opened the door to accusations the opposition parties will band together to subvert the will of voters.
I suspect the Harperites have clipped the Cullen comments and are in the process of producing ads that warn of “reckless coalitions” being formed between the opposition parties, to unleash in the closing days of what promises to be a tight campaign.
The course of events is similar to what transpired in the recent British general election, during which the Conservatives and Labour were running neck and neck into the home straight.
In one leaders debate, the Scottish National Party’s Nicola Sturgeon promised to help make Labour leader, Ed Miliband, the next prime minister. In its platform, the SNP pledged to work with the other parties to keep the Tories from office.
David Cameron’s Conservatives leapt on the idea that Labour would be propped up by the separatist SNP and, despite promises by Miliband that he would not co-operate with the nationalists after the election, it produced a late swing to the Tories.
Cullen’s comments are no surprise — he has long held this position. In the NDP leadership race, he proposed New Democrats and Liberals should co-operate on joint primary nominations, to determine the best possible local “progressive” candidate and avoid vote-splitting.
Tom Mulcair, the NDP leader, has been something of a weather vane on the issue, shifting his opinion with the prevailing political winds. In less prosperous days, he talked of being “always open to working with others.”
But as the NDP has waxed in popularity, he has ruled out any co-operation with the Liberals. “C’est fini,” he told the Journal de Montréal in May.
There may be some regional politics at play here — in Quebec, the NDP wants voters to think it is the only option to get rid of Harper; in B.C., it soft-pedals the differences between the parties.
Justin Trudeau, the Liberal leader, has been consistent that there can be no deal, on the basis that they disagree on too many issues, from the Clarity Act to abolishing the Senate. He is aware of what happened to the Liberal Democrats in Britain, junior partners in a coalition government that received all of the blame and none of the gain during five years in power. The party was reduced from 56 MPs to eight in the spring election.
But Mulcair and Trudeau’s protestations are not going to matter. Cullen’s comments are enough for the Conservatives to claim that the will of the voters would be overturned; that the second- and thirdplaced parties would orchestrate the demise of the winning Conservatives and ask the governor-general for the opportunity to form government.
This is quite a legitimate constitutional manoeuvre. In fact, Harper tried to pull the same stunt in 2004, when he signed a letter with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe that said if the Paul Martin government was defeated, the governor-general should look to the leader of the second-placed party to run the country – i.e., one Stephen J. Harper.
But it goes against the prevailing sense of fair play felt by many Canadians — that the winner should win, not be brought low by a coalition of the losers.
This all sounds like typically Machiavellian hard-ball politics by Harper. But I have few doubts that in this case, he would be correct to point out the determination of
The winner should win, not be brought low by a coalition of the losers
many progressives to overturn the election result at the first opportunity, if the Conservatives win a minority government.
One of the most senior Liberals in the land told me to ignore Liberal and NDP leaders who dismiss coalition or merger talk. “They will change the day after the election,” he said. “Minority means a change of government.”
As such, the closing days of the 2015 campaign may look and sound much like the closing days of the race in 2011, when it was only the prospect of a “stable, secure majority Conservative government” that could stave off a “reckless coalition” (is there any other kind?), bent on ushering in an era of higher taxes, reckless spending and zombies.
Never make predictions, especially about the future, they say. But you can take that one to the bank.