Harper’s road to recovery strewn with stones
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, of f to Europe Tuesday to play on the international stage he so enjoys, can still extricate himself and his party from the swamp in which they now find themselves, many would agree. The strategy is simple. The tactical moves are drop-dead obvious. Or are they?
First, Harper will soon shuffle his cabinet. In this by-now familiar scenario, a few high-profile, greying and controversial warhorses (Vic Toews and Julian Fantino, for instance) get cycled out. And the bright young sparks (Michelle Rempel, Kellie Leitch, Candice Bergen come to mind) get cycled in. At a stroke the Conservative brand is transformed from oldish, male and grumpy, to youngish, female and sunny.
The pending shuffle’s depth and breadth remain the subject of speculation. But most insiders expect a thorough reboot. In particular if Finance Minister Jim Flaherty retires (something he appears not to want, but about which there has been much discussion) all the major players can move. Even Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, one of the government’s three perceived cabinet stars alongside Jason Kenney and James Moore, is said to have asked bureaucrats to tidy up key files by mid-June.
Then comes a change in tone for the 164-member Conservative caucus. Under this scenario, the shock of Edmonton MP Brent Rathgeber’s resignation, combined with residual unhappiness over the stifling of backbench voices such as anti-abortion MPs Mark Warawa and Stephen Woodworth, at last causes the prime minister to relax his grip. It’s glasnost across the board, with fewer talking points and a generally more constructive approach. Rather than near-constant character assassination aimed at the opposition leaders, Conservative messaging post-reboot stresses the positive: Surging job growth, continuing low inflation and interest rates, and a balanced budget by late next year or early 2015.
Finally and perhaps most important, there’s the retooling of the PM himself. All Ottawa now breathlessly awaits the personal re-engagement of Stephen Harper. No one expects to see him grooving and jiving, Michael Ignatieff-style, in a summer street dance. But there is an expectation that, in addition to grilling sausages at the Calgary Stampede, Harper will warm up a little, and begin speaking directly to Canadians about his vision of the country. The ideal launch pad would be the Conservative policy convention in Calgary, June 27 to 29. As has often been pointed out, by me among others, Harper can be a very persuasive speaker. He doesn’t need to go all Justin Trudeau: He just needs to speak, now and then.
Well, yes. This is all plausible. But here’s some cold water.
The shuffle-as-regeneration scenario presupposes that elevating figures such as Rempel, Leitch, Bergen, and other perceived up-andcomers such as Chris Alexander and Pierre Poilievre, will materially renew the government’s image and brand. Except that these folks have already been front and centre, for more than a year. When Defence Minister Peter MacKay was in trouble last December over the F-35 debacle, it was Alexander who ran point. Whether in the House of Commons or on the weekend news shows, it’s the Rempels and Leitches who often carry the can. Unless the PM digs much deeper into his caucus than he’s currently expected to, in other words, the brand effect of a shuffle will be limited.
Next, while we’re on the subject of caucus: Before the “backbench spring” transformed social-conservative MPs such as Woodworth, Warawa and Rathgeber into warriors for free speech and accountability, they were mainly considered an impediment to Conservative electoral hopes. To be precise: The more these MPs speak up about their deeply-held beliefs, the harder it is for Harper to persuade Ontario and British Columbia swing voters — the key to the 2015 election — that they can safely re-elect the Conservatives, without fear of a social-conservative legislative revival. The original purpose of talking points is to prevent mistakes. It will take just one reactionary “bozo eruption” of the kind that torpedoed Wildrose in last year’s Alberta election, to bring caucus glasnost crashing down.
Last and most important, is the ticklish problem of Harper himself. According to party insiders he has been, since the DuffyWright scandal broke in mid-May, serving as his own chief strategist and communications adviser. That isn’t going so well. Nearly a month in, very simple questions about the affair (Where is the cheque? Can it be produced?) remain unanswered.
Given the stakes, and the natural uncertainty about whether Harper even intended to run again, before the Duffy affair, the weeks of bungling, deflection and obfuscation are strange and inexplicable. They begin to make sense, perhaps, if there are more and worse revelations still to emerge, which the PMO has been frantically trying to tamp down, till the summer break. Either way, Harper’s personal credibility has taken a massive broadside — and one that shows few signs of being temporary.
This all may be more than tweaking, reshaping or rebooting can address, in other words. It may require something more fundamental, such as change at the top.