Angry in the Great White North
A pathetic threat
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 10:09 AM

Read other posts by Steve Janke published by the National Post
Leader

The Liberals are acting tough:

Opposition party leaders warned yesterday they are willing to bring down Stephen Harper's minority government if it does not change its course -- particularly on the Tory promise to provide a child-care subsidy to parents -- in the next two weeks.

In separate meetings with the Prime Minister, interim Liberal leader Bill Graham and the Bloc Quebecois' Gilles Duceppe reminded the Conservative leader his party is outnumbered in the House of Commons and urged him to compromise on the government agenda as he drafts his Throne Speech.

The speech, which will be delivered by Governor-General Michaelle Jean on April 4, sets out the agenda for the coming parliamentary session and will be passed or defeated in a confidence vote that could spark another election.

Mr. Graham insisted the Liberals are willing to face the consequences of a confidence vote even though they won't have a new leader until December and are still struggling with the fallout of the party's defeat in January.

He laid out his party's well-known concerns about the Tory agenda, including the fate of a $5-billion deal -- signed by the Liberals last year -- to improve living conditions for aboriginals, opposition to a cut to the Goods and Services Tax and Mr. Harper's promise to pull out of child-care agreements that were also signed by the previous Liberal government.

Strong words from a weak party:

Despite Mr. Graham's threat, his party is ill-suited to face an election until at least 2007. The Liberal executive agreed last weekend to hold a leadership convention in December to replace former prime minister Paul Martin.

Mr. Graham pointedly refused to say whether he was prepared to lead his party into an election if Mr. Harper's government suffered a quick defeat. He called one reporter's scenario "hypothetical."

One wonders just how many in the Liberal caucus are really willing to go into another election less than three months after the last election, which was preceded by an election only 17 months earlier. And that election in June 2004 was called early by Paul Martin in an attempt to win a majority ahead of the Gomery Inquiry testimony.

The last two elections saw the Liberals cut down from a majority to a minority, then from a minority to the largest opposition party. Continuing the trend means third party status or worse. Stephen Harper is doing well in the polls, better in fact, than before the vote on January 23. The Liberals are in debt and without a leader. In fact, they lack even a potential leader as all the big names have already dropped out. In Quebec, the Conservatives are likely to build on their success in the last election, while the Liberals are likely to fall lower, again based on the personal popularity of Stephen Harper.

Moreover, if the Throne Speech outlines the same five priorities, including the commitment to cut the GST and to replace the Liberal daycare program with direct payments to parents, then Stephen Harper and the Conservatives will be doing exactly what they've promised to do for months now. Promises that got the party elected.

I don't know what makes Bill Graham thinks that having a "do-over" on the last election so soon will accomplish. The Liberals have no new ideas. They don't even have a new face yet. The Conservatives are being consistent. Nothing else has changed. I suppose the fight for David Emerson's seat would be interesting, but that's about it.

Defeating the government now would be seen as a colossal waste of time by the electorate, especially if the government is defeated for doing exactly what it promised to do, promises that already won it an election. Stephen Harper would call for the shortest campaign allowed by law, arguing correctly that nothing has changed from the last campaign to justify anything longer. The Liberals would have no choice but to offer to Canadians a chance to vote for an interim prime minister, and then ask voters to trust the party to replace him or her with a new leader that they would like once the leadership convention happened.

Another unelected prime minister -- just like Paul Martin when he got the job. And look how well it turned out for him when he first went to the polls in June 2004.

For Canadians who cast their vote influenced primarily on who they think would be the best prime minister, the situation would be seen as ridiculous. And be certain that all the other parties would make hay on the fact that during a Leaders' Debate, the Liberal contender is just a placeholder, making any comments he or she makes essentially irrelevant.

I expect a few Liberal MPs would not even bother running for re-election, and that more than a few losers from the January 23 vote would decide to sit this one out. Donors would keep their checkbooks in their pockets, and I doubt the Liberal Party credit line with the banks would go very far right now. Could they even get an airplane this time around?

The whole thing is absurd. I don't know why the Liberals think making these sorts of wild threats will accomplish anything. Expect Stephen Harper to meet with the other party leaders, but in the end stay true to himself and his party platform. No one knows what will happen during an election, but at first glance, it sure seems like a bad idea for the Liberals.

Actually, the threat seems rather pathetic.

Main Story

Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords