Michael Harris is making predictions this morning -- and they're really quite intriguing. Last time around, he writes, the Liberals won because they ran against Stephen Harper. Harper won't be there next time. And the Conservatives and Dippers have their problems:
The CPC is no longer led by a man Canadians didn’t trust and didn’t like. Instead, Andrew Scheer is a lightweight, B-list politician who inspires neither fear nor loathing.
Scheer is like a boring relative who won’t leave. You don’t go out of your way to diss him, but you try not to sit beside him at family gatherings. Scheer is no one’s default choice, except for the Kool-Aid drinkers who went down with Harper.
Jagmeet Sing has returned to the Dippers' socialist roots. But Rachel Notley is an anchor around his neck:
She is killing the NDP brand. The premier of Alberta is NDP in name only. It is bad enough that she has abandoned her progressive roots to flog the development of dirty oil, but Notley has also stamped her foot like a petulant child and attacked others publicly who don’t agree with her on the proliferation of pipelines.
It was one thing to skip Singh’s first national convention as leader, but by personally attacking Singh, Notley has created real anxiety about what the NDP actually stands for.
So, looking into the future, what does Harris see?
Scheer losing another election for the Conservatives, but closing the gap with the ruling Liberals, and setting the table for his replacement. Defeating Trudeau has always been a two-step operation for the Tories, and Scheer is merely the placeholder. Peter MacKay is the real contender in due time.
With no Harper to tilt against, no NDP strategic votes to pick up and the increasingly heavy baggage of a term of governing, it is unlikely that Trudeau will gain seats — as some of his more enthusiastic supporters believe.
The more likely outcome is a Liberal minority government, perhaps even a razor-thin one. That is exactly what happened to Trudeau senior and the massive majority government he won in 1968. After one term in office, the Liberals lost a whopping 46 seats and were reduced to a two-seat minority in the 1972 election.
Which leaves room for the Green Party to fill the void:
After years of being a voice in the wilderness, May and the Green Party are well-positioned to make big gains relative to the party’s current parliamentary status. Remember, one extra seat represents a 100 per cent improvement.
But Harris does throw in a caveat:
The left in Canada remains divided. The hard right is making steady progress at the provincial level. And Trump may throw a spanner into Canadian politics at any moment, causing the kind of economic chaos that breeds radical change.
Without electoral reform, it is just a matter of time before the Cons waiting game pays off, and they are at the country’s throat once more.
Your thoughts?
Image: Unpublished Ottawa
13 comments:
Sanctimonious posturing aside Canadians are just as vulnerable to the far right strategies of identity politics and grudge revenge - perhaps even more so due to the unconscious nature of said sanctimony.
Beneath all that sermonizing about multiculturalism and tolerance lurks a petulant anglo-saxon whinger yearning to be free.
I agree that Trudeau and the old school Liberal machinery that has driven the party since time immemorial have perhaps one more tentative thrust to go before the deluge.
I disagree that the Canadian electorate has the courage or selflessness to actually put their vote where their sanctimony resides and vote Green.
That's the seminal question, Deacon. Voting Green would amount to a radical shift in Canadian politics.
Peter MacKay? Really?
Good question, Toby. The man who sold out and gave the party to Harper? He doesn't seem to be a wise choice -- just a blast from the past.
Been a long time since the cons made a wise choice.
I agree, rumley. And, here in Ontario, we're reminded of that every day.
I read a brief interview with Hans Joachim Schellnhuber today. The former head of Germany's Potsdam Institute said that 2018 is the year that the reality of climate change came to the forefront of the public consciousness.
“This is the moment when people start to realise that global warming is not a problem for future generations, but for us now.”
The Greens have never been better positioned for a general election.
Harris is right in those three words, "without electoral reform." That was one of Trudeau's greatest, most craven betrayals of the Canadian people.
I hope Trudeau does get a razor-thin minority, one that sends him, cap in hand, to the Green Party for support. What worries me is whether Elizabeth May will be tough enough to make him pay.
With Trump to the south of us and the smoke from the fires in B.C. drifting towards Ontario, Mound, we may start to see a fundamental political re-alignment in this country.
Doubtful,
Canadian's would have to be engaging in politics, and they are not.
In 2008 the Green's got 6.8% of the vote, and no MP's.
In 2015, 3.45%
I suspect that events could change those numbers, Jay. But, frankly, I can't predict those events.
I'd like to publish your comment, Anon. But it needs to be initialled.
The big issue isn't going to be the environment or climate change.
The big issue is economic inequality.
Most people have shit jobs, or multiple shit jobs, and their is a tsunami of people heading for retirement, with no pensions or savings.
Climate change is bound to figure into the future, Jay. But I agree that what is driving increasing public anger is economic inequality.
Post a Comment