Live, from the serene shores of Cole Lake, comes the Chronicle’s very first “Election Prediction” post.
It seems inevitable that the federal budget, tabled Tuesday, will precipitate a vote of non-confidence on Friday, and a subsequent walk to Rideau Hall looking for a dissolution of Parliament. Before the snow has fully melted, crews of volunteers will be slapping up lawn signs here, there and everywhere, and for a 4 to 6 week period, tragedy in Japan and war in Libya will be crowded off the news channels – the Canadian ones, that is.
Leaders will tell you that they don’t want to do it. All they want is to work together for the public good. And yet, no election in the midpoint of a term ever happens unless one, or many, of them want it to.
If you are Gilles Duceppe, you sense an opportunity to wrest away a handful of Tory seats in and near Quebec City.
If you are Jack Layton, you view the polls which put you within spitting distance of the Liberals, and you think that you might be able to snag an extra seat or two in B.C.
If you are Michael Ignatieff, the recent miscues and embarrassments of the government show a rare moment of blood in the water, and the consequent feeding frenzy may be the best shot your party has had in months, if not years.
Then again, if you are Stephen Harper, you look at the polls, the party war chests, and the strength of your ground game, and reason that while you don’t want an election, you are not going to be heartbroken if you are forced into one.
So, to varying degrees, each party is spoiling for a fight. That is why you will be asked to cast a ballot before the crocuses bloom.
But what will this achieve? If you are the opposition, you see it as the end of Tory rule. If you are the government, you see it as a chance at that elusive prize of a majority government. That’s what you can hope for, but what you get may be quite different. I, for one, am a partisan. I have a horse in this race, and I know the outcome I would like. That, however, doesn’t mean I will get it.
The following is less about what I would like to see than what is likely.
First, though, consider the many variables that go into a victory – or a defeat:
1.
1. Opposition parties do not win elections – governing parties lose them. If Messrs. Ignatieff or Layton wish to become Prime Minister, it will be due to a lack of support for Mr. Harper, and not some groundswell for their policies and leadership acumen. Even Barack “Yes We Can” Obama needed the tailwind of an unpopular George W. Bush in order to get to the White House;
2.
2. The ground game – leadership counts, but the ground game in 308 ridings matters more in the tight races. Money, volunteers, quality candidates and good organization – if at a consistent level across the country – can translate in up to 25 seats easy. That’s less than what the Tories need for a majority, and close to enough for Michael Ignatieff to become Prime Minister.
3.
3. The defining moment / policy of this campaign is a mystery yet to be revealed – if you think it’s about Harper’s perceived ‘arrogance’ or Ignatieff’s perceived…’arrogance’, think again. Somewhere, somehow, a lone Canadian – a voter, a candidate, or a political staffer – will lob a grenade into the middle of the race. The media and blogosphere will examine and chronicle it closer than a Charlie Sheen blood test. Voters will then be encouraged to consider it as a wider metaphor for the relative worthiness – or unworthiness – of a given leader / party. It will account for about a five point swing in the polls and that’s enough to determine a winner. If you’re Kim Campbell watching clips of those infamous TV ads from 1993, or former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown listening to your own voice trashing a voter for being a racist / bigot, you know what I mean.
4.
4. Money talks – cash in the bank for parties matters. Ads, lawnsigns, and mailings aren’t free. Just as birds gotta fly and fish gotta swim, party leaders gotta charter buses and planes, and that costs serious dough.
So, what do I think?
The strengths:
1.
The Tories: A war chest that is massive compared to their rivals, a well-oiled machine, and experienced ground game, and a leader that never – ever – shoots from the hip. A successful economic record, and an exuding of confident leadership.
2.
The Liberals: A smart and erudite leader who is learning to become comfortable in his own skin, and a modest rebuilding of the party’s moribund finances, combined with a tailwind from recent Tory controversies. A recent theme to capitalize on embarrassing misdeeds and misdeals does speak to the integrity issue, which could yield dividends.
3.
The NDP: Jack Layton scores high on the leadership and integrity issue, and the party has closed the polling gap with the Liberals. Also, recent retirements among Tory MP’s in B.C. give some cause for hope.
The weaknesses:
1.
The Tories: Perceptions of aloofness play into the narrative of a ‘hidden agenda’. Also, recent embarrassments hit at the issue of integrity and credibility. Despite good economic numbers, unemployment is still high, and issues surrounding the price of F-35 fighter jets could be a major irritant on the campaign trail.
2. The Liberals: Stephen Harper might not be a warm and fuzzy fellow, but neither is Michael Ignatieff. Unfortunately, an air of superiority is harder to overcome than an air of aloofness. Beyond that, the Grits have significantly less money than the Tories – both nationally and locally. In a countdown of the wealthiest partisan riding associations in Canada, the Liberals do not even crack the top 30. Party HQ does not rent campaign offices in small town Canada, nor does it recruit volunteers and purchase lawn signs.
3. The NDP: Their weakness is their strength. Despite what many think of Tory and Liberal prospects, no party has its fate so closely tied to its leader than the New Democrats. Jack Layton’s recent health issues, and how they figure, will determine whether the NDP capitalizes on its recent poll strength.
The ‘Wild Cards’:
1. Mid East turmoil: More trouble in the region could spike oil prices, leading to mid-campaign pain. If you are the government, it’s hard to sell your financial stewardship when Canadians are being given pink slips a couple of days after the writ has been dropped. Also, if the mission in Libya takes a turn for the worse, there could be a price to be paid.
2. Foot-In-mouth disease: No matter how experienced candidates are, and no matter how carefully vetted they are, stupid happens. Put a microphone in front of some candidates and they act like the garrulous uncle who has a few too many boilermakers at the last family reunion. A local meet and greet or town hall can get covered by Lloyd Robertson or Peter Mansbridge in the space of a 24 hour news cycle if there’s enough red meat.
3.
The Debate: Is there a defining soundbite? Is there not? Ever since John F. Kennedy’s ‘youthful’ presence upstaged Nixon’s pallid visage (ironically, Nixon was younger than Kennedy), televised debates have shifted ground. Brian Mulroney’s ‘you had a choice, sir’ charge to John Turner in 1984, and followed up by Turner’s counter-charge of signing the country away in 1988 each impacted the race. As a disclosure, on one of the two aforementioned examples, yours truly was in the company of one of these leaders less than 24 hours after the debate. Believe me when I say that debates matter. They won’t win or lose the election, but they can change the landscape nonetheless.
Now, after all of that, and taking into account as many things as I can, I predict that the Tories will win either a stronger minority, or a bare majority – maybe 3 or 4 seats beyond the threshold. Probably no more.
As it is, the Tories have tons of cash and a very disciplined team on the ground. The Liberals are getting some traction, but not enough, and a strong NDP showing will create enough splitting on the left to put about 30-35 ridings in play.
In the end, though, only a fool tries to predict the future. The only safe bet is to say that the winning party will be the one who screws up the least.
Bon chance from the bucolic shores of the Lake!
