As for Ottawa, how long will it all go on?
by Kenneth Bagnell
“I am extraordinarily patient,” Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister in the 1980s once said, “provided I get my own way.” For some reason or other, I think the words might well have been spoken by our very own Prime Minister. Maybe attitude had something to do with the recent exits of several Stephen Harper allies in very high office. They headed for the doors: James Moore, Minister of Industry, John Baird, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Peter MacKay, Minister of Justice. (A future Prime Minister just might have been among them.) Then there were those who had left earlier, several in less public but still influential positions, including senior staff people, some others at key posts. I only venture to wonder if, with three terms behind him, Mr. Harper is now, to put it fairly and frankly, an increasingly vulnerable leader as the country prepares for the federal election scheduled for October 19.
This morning, July 4, Conrad Black, an erudite man and a reflective conservative, (regardless of his many critics) has an op-ed essay in The National Post, titled: “How Harper can break out of his funk.” In essence his perspective is reflected in an early observation: “It has on balance been quite a successful government but now gives every appearance of having run out of ideas; of losing some of its best people without replacing them with equivalent talent; of fearing what may emerge from the Duffy trial over candour in answers to parliamentary questions; of fatigue, ill temper and the general blahs of prolonged incumbency…” That, from a reserved supporter, sums it up rather well. One poll should confirm both Black’s view and the public’s, as well as raising Harper’s eyebrows and maybe his heartbeat,) In late June, in the Toronto Star, the poll actually foresaw 36 percent of Canadians voting for the NDP. Yes, the NDP! (I very rarely use the exclamation mark.) As for Liberals and Conservatives the survey puts them in a dead heat at 28 percent. The exiting of key ministers, several staff people, the Senate scandals, and a few other factors, (including a personal attitude that recalls Margaret Thatcher’s) have, I suggest, formed and then accelerated this public sentiment.
But there’s more. Actually, we should not be hugely surprised that the New Democrats have pulled ahead. The reasons, along with the Ottawa debacle are, not entirely but largely, due to the gifts of Thomas Mulcair, at least the public Thomas Mulcair. In the House of Commons and in the media, it’s justified to say, he rarely if ever puts a foot wrong and, when in the scrums with the journalists, he’s calm, clear, concise and courteous. Most, not all of this considerable political skill, comes from his very professional background which was in the courtroom, not just as defender, but prosecutor.
But let’s hold the applause for Mulcair at least for a minute. Just because the polls give him a clear lead now is the time for a pause for caution. What do we really truly know about this man, other than what’s said of him, including the claim that, a few years ago, he gave thought to taking on a job with you know who, Stephen Harper, who for the past nine years has been Prime Minister. The last time I checked he was not at all a good Liberal. As for the approval rating that he is now receiving, it’s interesting and appealing but it is definitely not the proverbial be all and end all. After all public opinion is exactly that: opinion. And not necessarily informed opinion. At least keep in mind – for three seconds – the adage of Winston Churchill years ago: “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
I’m sorry but he’s too often right. So what of the average person who, while watching wrestling on TV, picks up the phone and takes a maximum of one minute to tell an anonymous surveyor he thinks Thomas Mulcair is appealing. I mean the public Mulcair. On TV. I’m only mentioning TV because of a lecturer I had long ago — Clayton Baxter, a Mount Allison philosophy professor — who preached day after day after day: “the much needed practice of ‘critical’ thinking.’ ” Not a bad idea. If tried.
Then there’s the article in the current MacLean’s magazine, the one with the troublesome title: “Mulcair’s Secret Meetings with the Tories.” What? It claims, that in 2007, he discussed with senior members of that party, the idea of his joining them as a very senior advisor. He admits this happened, but the article reports that talks broke off given differences on environmental issues. (The players in the story were quite influential, said to include a former chief-of staff, a position that obviously has the ear of the governing party’s leader whose advisor he’d be.) The implicit purpose of the piece, is elusive; is it a planted strategy by Mulcair’s adversaries to discredit him? Or is it just what it should be: a revealing of the man’s opportunism that is masked by his graceful humanistic style? The content leans in that direction though the title, see above, is neutral, at least somewhat.
As if arriving on schedule, a week or so later, a surprising party eruption took place in Newfoundland, sparked by the legendary Conservative family –- the Crosbies. It’s over the Harper party’s rejection of a family member, Ches Crosbie, as a federal Conservative candidate in the upcoming election. Why should this be? After all he’s not just the son of the much revered John Crosbie, now in his mid-eighties, but Ches is also a highly regarded Newfoundland lawyer. Why this? Apparently, Ches Crosbie, as it’s reported, took part in a local light hearted skit to help fund a stage group. (According to Friday’s National Post on-line he confirmed why — in a statement made on Wednesday — he was rejected by the party: “The decision makers at party headquarters in Ottawa decided I wasn’t the type of candidate they wanted.”) He has no plans to appeal. An educated and much respected lawyer in Newfoundland who is John Crosbie’s son? Strange. What’s the problem? Answer: who knows? (Maybe it’s because he appeared to poke a bit of local fun at the current Senate scandal. In the Stephen Harper political culture that appears to be an ever more obvious “no-no.”)
Other than that, there’s no rationale for it. So no less a national father figure than the former Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland & Labrador, who was also a senior minister of the governments of (a) Joey Smallwood, (b) Joe Clarke and (c) Brian Mulroney went on national TV newscasts and denounced his own Conservative party’s leadership –- that is, the current leadership. Doesn’t Stephen Harper know that all he and/or his advisors are doing will further damage their government and its future? For the rest of us, the whole scene is deteriorating so that the coming election may well marginalize all the daunting issues we should be facing. They are doing it by giving Ottawa’s centre stage to a juvenile play with juvenile antics.
*********
The link to the Star’s chart is http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election.html Scroll down to find the chart entitled “Federal party tracker”.
All past blogs are archived on my website: your comments are welcome there: www.kennethbagnell.com.