Monday, 24 May 2004
A vote for Stephen Harper, by default - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER - Federal elections are a curious exercise, especially for British Columbians. The reasons why a British Columbian would vote the way he votes, are divergent to those that compels an Ontarian or a New Brunswicker to go to the polls. Those differences are thanks to federalism and how the diversity of the nation is somehow inconsolable. One supposes that's what makes Canada unique.
Like a great many other British Columbians who go to the polls thinking about their vote before hand, I will vote for the party that will provide my province with the best representation in Ottawa. Invariably for British Columbians, that is one of an opposition party, namely someone other than the Liberals. Even cabinet ministers when the reach Ottawa, appear no more than a shill or apologist for the government, spouting the party line, with hardly any consideration for the legitimate concerns of British Columbians, save for perhaps the accruement of largesse. Pierre Trudeau used to say of MPs, that they were nobodies fifty yards from Parliament Hill. One wonders why he even put the geographic limitation. Opposition MPs, because they have precious to lose, have a better chance at affecting change. Think of the ideas that have been propagated in the political discourse of the last decade: the slaying of the deficit and debt and the democratic deficit, and you'll realise that those are ideas harped upon for ages by parties like the old Reform Party, as well as the NDP.
During the forthcoming campaign, I will consider carefully the choices that I will face when I hide behind that cardboard booth to mark my ballot. I haven't made up my mind as to whom I will vote for, as I want to give the candidates in my riding, Vancouver Kingsway, the benefit of the doubt as to their ideas, ideals and the reasons why they think they should win the seat. The candidates in my riding, of the three major parties at least, have all come forward already, so I have an idea of what to expect. My mind is yet not made up, so I look forward to the debates that will ensue.
In the 2000 campaign however, I paid little attention to the candidates in Kingsway, if for no other reason that none really compelled much interest from me. I considered my vote a national vote on which party I preferred. Naturally, that was the Canadian Alliance, as I had little interest in supporting Jean Chrétien and his Liberal government. In 2004 however, it's a little different, because for one, the races in the province are actually competitive between all three major parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP. At this point, prior to the writ being dropped, it's a three-way race, ditto for Vancouver Kingsway, which is why I'm keeping my options open.
On a national level, between Paul Martin and the Liberals, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, and Jack Layton and the NDP, I have my ideas as to whom I would like to form the next government. Ideally, a Conservative government would provide Canadians with a new course, and doubtless a lively course for these early years in the 21st century. However, a government led by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, by simple virtue of the fact the party itself is a rather new entity, would be slightly dangerous.
It is obvious that the Paul Martin Liberals will win the next election, barring something catastrophic happening to the Liberals. The Martin Liberals however, for all their fresh paint and new leader, are very much the same party that was led by Jean Chrétien. Forget bringing in people like Jean Lapierre in Quebec, Ken Dryden in York, Glenn Murray in Winnipeg, or lefties like Ujjal Dosanjh and Dave Haggard here in BC. Martin's promises for changes in governance and curbing the democratic deficit has yet yielded very little change, if not this Prime Minister has only exacerbated the problems. That said the issue is not whether the Conservatives should replace the Liberals. The question is whether the Martin government deserves re-election, and whether the Stephen Harper led Conservatives are worthy contenders against the Liberal juggernaut.
The sponsorship scandal, and whether it resonates with the voters is key. Again, how and if it resonates, is purely regional. If Martin is able to shake off the scandal, he'll get off scot-free. In Ontario, the Liberals will lose its strangle hold on the province's seats if only for the fact that the NDP has gained a greater prominence there thanks to its leader Jack Layton, as well as the return of Ed Broadbent. The sponsorship scandal will weigh heavily in Quebec naturally, posing a curious dichotomy. If they do affect the Liberals badly in Quebec, then the Liberals will lose support. However, in Quebec, Paul Martin is far more popular than Jean Chrétien was, so right off the bat, the status quo in Quebec looks ensured if not improved. One would suppose that the Bloc Quebecois's support is stagnant if not declining thanks to the lack of fervour in the sovereignty movement in Quebec. The Parti Quebecois was voted out; however, the Bloc has been very good in shifting its message away from separation, and rather positing itself as a defender of Quebec's interests. Polls from last week suggest that the BQ are on the right track considering they are neck and neck with the Liberals, with room for them to over take and win a majority of seats in the province.
The Conservatives have yet to emerge as a viable contender in forming a government in place of the Liberals. Though the merger between the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties has yielded some success, the union is tenuous at best considering that under Martin, the Liberals have taken a directional step to the right, and the NDP has been revitalised under Jack Layton. Stephen Harper is yet largely unknown east of the Lakehead, and if he is known, the perception is none too positive considering that he's dealing with baggage from the past, misstatements from the past. Harper's message needs broadening and his new party needs to take part in doing that, not leaving it up to the leader. Heretofore, some 48 hours into the campaign, it's all been on Harper's shoulders, and though he's done well, where are the non-Alliance Conservatives like Peter MacKay or Belinda Stronach? Failing to engage Canadians with a Conservative Party that's not just the sum of the parts that formed the union will not yield the number of seats that they currently have. (And a word about Stephen Harper's demeanour: One naturally worried that he'd appear too stiff or rather uncoloured, as he has appeared over the last couple of years. From what I've seen in the last 48 hours or so, I can say he's certainly made the effort. This is not another Robert Stanfield in image, thank goodness.)
Whilst I prefer a Stephen Harper led government, I am not naïve to think that the Conservatives can unseat the Liberals and Paul Martin. Even I worry that the newness of the party and the lack of cohesive policies and the difficulty in coalescing the two entities and their detractors, would hinder their effectiveness should they be called upon to form the next government. Were I to vote for whom I think would lead a better government, I would still pick Stephen Harper, the only caveat being that as they seem awfully close to the throes of power, let this be a signal to all Conservatives that they need to get their act together. Canadians are more than ready to consider a Conservative government once again. The ball is in Stephen Harper's court, and it's up to him and his party to prove to Canadians that they deserve the chance to govern. Failing to do so, would elect by default an unworthy Liberal government, again.
-30-
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .