Spring election would pose formidable task for new leader
JOHN IBBITSON
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
VANCOUVER — At this week's caucus retreat, whenever two or three Liberals gather together to discuss the leadership race, perhaps over a glass of wine, one question dominates: Who should lead us, if this country is forced into a federal election next spring?
Three general elections in less than three years would signal a dangerous level of instability in Canadian politics, undermining confidence in this country's ability to manage its affairs.
But there may be no escape. The NDP will certainly oppose the next budget, and the Liberals will be hard-pressed to support it since it will axe funding for their national child-care program. (The last budget announced the end of that program, but left funding in place for this fiscal year to give the provinces time to prepare.) And if the budget includes the Conservatives' plan to end the alleged fiscal imbalance between the federal and provincial governments, the Bloc Québécois will be compelled to condemn those measures as inadequate, or else surrender the very reason for that party's existence.
With no obvious way out, the budget could be doomed to defeat in advance, requiring a spring election, with enormous consequences for the Liberal Party leadership race.
Any leader will face a formidable challenge readying the party for a campaign mere months after winning the title. The Liberal Party of Canada has $600,000 in the bank and a sound line of credit. But the leader will have little time to unite the caucus, craft a platform and prepare an election strategy.
Michael Ignatieff, though the front-runner in this campaign, has been in politics for less than a year and has never led anything larger than a seminar. Fighting a general election is a lousy way to learn on the job.
Gerard Kennedy and Stéphane Dion, two other serious contenders, also lack leadership experience, although they, at least, have served as high-profile cabinet ministers. Bob Rae, whatever his alleged shortcomings, is the only candidate with experience in leading a political party in an election campaign.
Yet Mr. Rae may be one of the candidates the Tories would most like to take on in an election, thanks to his unpopularity as Ontario premier in the 1990s.
Some Liberals believe Mr. Ignatieff's campaign has so much support that victory at the December convention is virtually assured. This is a strange assumption.
The Liberal Party always shifts to the left during a leadership campaign, thanks in part to the delegate-selection process. Of the 14 delegates that each riding will send to the convention, half must be women, four must be youth, and two must be seniors. Women, youth and seniors generally sit on the left of the political spectrum because they have needs that government can fulfill.
Mr. Ignatieff, however, is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as the candidate farthest to the right, which could foment an anyone-but-Iggy movement on the convention floor.
Finally, some Liberal MPs wonder whether Mr. Ignatieff would be the best candidate if the election hinges on Conservative approaches to Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the Kyoto Protocol since he is perceived as closer to the Tories on all three issues.
Which brings the talk in the bar back to the timing of the election, and the question of which horse would be best to send into that race.
A spring vote isn't inevitable. Mr. Harper may do everything he can to stay in power until after the Quebec election, to see how his ally, Jean Charest, fares. It will be difficult to hold a federal election in 2007, with both Ontario and Quebec expected to hold votes of their own, which would vacuum up fundraising dollars and deplete the stock of available party workers.
On the other hand, fighting a federal election in Quebec at the same time that a provincial election is under way might rob the Bloc Québécois of logistical support from the Parti Québécois. What if Mr. Harper and Mr. Charest go in tandem next spring?
Waiter, another drink please.
[email protected]
