What next for the Liberals?
Stephane Dion gave his best speech of the election on election night. His English was very good, he spoke forcefully and with clarity, and he addressed the most important issue facing Canadians: the problems of the economy.
It’s an irony of politics that his remarks came in a concession speech. Had he been able to carry his message as effectively during the campaign, the results might have been less disastrous for the Liberal party.
“We will work with the government to ensure that Canadians are protected from the economic storm. My top priority will be the economy,” Dion said.
As it is, Dion has led his party to its worst defeat since Confederation — 76 seats of 308 and just 26.2 per cent of the popular vote. His future as leader seems limited to months, if not weeks.
How Dion Got There
Dion was chosen by Liberal delegates who were tired of being dictated to by the the top brass of the party. They couldn’t stomach the other choices they were given: a man who’d been the NDP premier of Ontario (Bob Rae), or a guy who’d been out of the country for 30 years and had supported the Iraq war (Michael Ignatieff).
Whenever the Liberals gather to choose a new leader, these two figures will likely be there again. Ignatieff has earned grudging respect for having twice won Etobicoke Lakeshore, and having been an effective party spokesman. Same for Rae, in Toronto Centre.
While they’ll be the leading contenders, don’t overlook other possibilities: John Manley, Frank McKenna, Gerard Kennedy, and of course Martha Hall Findlay who distinguished herself in the last leadership race.
The main features of the election are fairly clear: the Liberal stumble with Dion’s failure to sell his Green Shift; Conservative blundering on culture and youth punishment that cost them Quebec support and in the end, Harper his majority; failure of the NDP to bulk up outside of Ontario and B.C., despite winning one seat in each of Alberta, Quebec, and Newfoundland; and the disappointing finish for Elizabeth May and the Green party.
The saddest part of the election was the poor turn-out: just 59 percent, the lowest on record. It means Mr. Harper is Prime Minister on the votes of not many more than one in five adult Canadians. His 143 seats give him a stronger minority, but not his much sought after majority.
The results present another good reason to dump the first-past-the-post electoral system, in favor of some form of proportional representation. It’s not acceptable that one party gets 50 seats with 10 percent of the vote (the Bloc) and the Greens get none with 7 per cent.
Maybe that low vote was due to two things: First, there was no real reason for Harper to call the election. In doing so, he violated the principle of his own law for fixed election dates. Second, none of the party leaders effectively addressed the very real global economic crisis that Canada now finds itself a part of. If our leaders don’t offer up solutions, how can people vote for them?
Less importantly, whoever dreamt up that bizarre studio set the CBC used last night? It made Peter Mansbridge look like the condemned man seeking mercy from his Lord High Executioners, all ensconced in their elevated thrones. And over on CTV, all I could see whenever I checked in there was Lloyd Robertson’s tired face. Did Canadians really have to suffer all that and Harper too?
I don’t see how this election can satisfy anyone except Duceppe. It cost $300 million, and attracted the lowest vote ever held. Each party was within two percentage points of what it attracted in the last election except in Ontario where Dion was judged unacceptable in exurbia. This leaves a sour after-taste, but there are bigger dangers. In Calgary, and in Newmarket, Ont, the folks think the Quebecois denied a majority to Harper which he deserved. They blame the French Canadians. Other tensions include a badly skewed representation which denies cities the voices they should have based on population – this injustice grates. The centres of population are represented by Liberals, the hinterland and small centres by Conservatives. I expect politics in this House to be much uglier than the last. Dion can’t pussyfoot now! The Liberal absence from the vote was partly out of disgust at Dion for going along with Harper. There is no doubt that Dion was a weak leader. His English was not good enough, and his instincts were slow. Many liberals believed the economy would be the ballot question from the beginning. The role the world-wide financial collapse played was that it made many feel insecure. To suggest a radical change in taxation (green shift) during a period of insecurity was too much for many exurbanites Liberals who quit on that note. But if Harper was unable to get a majority against Dion, who can he beat? Harper is not a world-beater by anyone’s measure.
Finally, Dion was outraged by an incident with CTV in Halifax at the end of the campaign. He received an assurance that a question he bumbled at the start of an interview when the question was not understood would not be broadcast. Instead it was fed directly to Harper who leaped on air to claim that the bumbled response indicated that Dion did not know what to do with the financial crisis. This snippet and Harper reaction were face-booked everywhere. However, the first thing Harper has done today is to announce a six-point programme that mirrors Dion’s five-point proposal which Harper dissed as just a bunch of meeting. This Harper announcement today is the very some as the answer Dion was trying to make clear on air during that Halifax CTV interview.