Welcome to my blog. I learn so much from others who share with me their thinking, opinions, experiences, photos, music, pains, happiness, and so much more. In turn, I like sharing too and especially enjoy engaging and thoughtful dialogue. So don't be afraid to tell me what you think. If you want to know more about me and my work, I hope you will read a few of my posts and visit corestrategies.ca.  

For several weeks, even a month or two, I've been struggling with a difficult decision I arrived at over the weekend and which I have decided upon today.

In short, I can't help a client that stops listening and I can't afford, any longer, that I might have been the strategist on-board when the ship went down given my efforts to try and prevent it.

The following is my view of the political landscape.   

For those listening, not listening, and those reading between the lines even on this space, the warning signals from this observer haven’t changed. For weeks, even months, I’ve been as much perplexed about better strategies not followed, as I have been concerned about gaping holes and weaknesses in the ones chosen.

The flaw is not in the genuine shared concern for the planet, nor in the commendable desire to put aside pure partisanship. On the contrary. The flaw is in the logic of how to go about it. By “it” I mean the “how” to work together.

If concern for the planet is paramount, if Mr. Dion is truly the best Prime Minister or at least the better choice among two, if the ultimate goal is to prevent the really bad guy (presumably Mr. Harper) from getting back in, and if colluding to work together is the recipe chosen for achieving the stated goal, then not running competing candidates in St. Laurent or Central Nova only, isn’t going to cut it.

Not that Green’s fractured ~4% of the vote last time is, this time out, going to do anything for anyone in any particular riding, but assuming the current 8-13% was to hold and was somehow concentrated – which it isn’t – wouldn’t it make more sense to the purported crucially important planetary goal of making sure our next prime minister is Mr. Dion and not Mr. Harper, have a better chance of success with a full-scale merger? Or, simply cross the floor and be done with it becoming Environment Minister or at least the opposition’s official environment critic.

Disagreements, if there are any, are more likely to come on the Environment file. The Green party position on the environment might in fact be that the Liberal Party doesn’t go far enough. Could it be, therefore, the union of convenience is as much about de-greening the Greens as it is greening the Liberals? The yet to come Conservative attack on Greens, is likely going to be similar to attacks on separatist forces in Quebec. For example, ‘what extreme position are they not telling you about … what will be economic cost…etc.?’ Like most attack ads, bogus, but effective.

But even if that isn’t the case. Imagine there is little or no disagreement on the environment file between Grits and Greens, and the real reason for not uniting completely is because of too much disagreement on the other issues. Assume for the moment there was some huge, insurmountable, and irreconcilable difference – and there isn’t – between the Green and Grits on say Afghanistan, Health Care, Taxation, Crime…etc. If the “coming together” is somehow possible on this “the most important issue of the century” then Lord-love-a-duck, surely it was possible to come together on those far lesser issues over which there is what? … some sort of cataclysmic divide? I think not.

It’s either the “issue of the century” or it isn’t. The Ralph Nader analogy is irrelevant and ignorant (in the dictionary sense of the term) to the differences between Canada’s parliamentary system and that of the United States. Granted, it is appropriate to suggest that had Ralph Nader publicly hugged AL Gore, then George Bush wouldn’t be President. That’s because every American has a single and separate vote for President. But not every Canadian has the option to vote for either Stephen Harper or Stéphane Dion, let alone the ankle-biters.

In Canada we get one vote, and only one vote. And with that single vote, to quote Garth Turner, “we are expected to choose a party, a leader, a prime minister, a philosophy and an MP -- all with one vote. It is clearly impossible.”

If there is an election this spring, which I now think is a near certainty (more on that later) then expecting the symbolism of what Dion and May have done to carry the vote, is both naïve and impossible for the very reasons outlined above. At least not with the current set of voting options open to Canadians. In fact, it is more likely to ensure it does not happen because of vote splitting.

Even if every Liberal and every Green buys into the symbolism, outside of Central Nova and St-Laurent, exactly how does one go about supporting it in a way that defeats Mr. Harper?  History suggests Mr. Dion has never needed Green support to win his seat in St-Laurent, and it is not yet known what amount of Liberal support will impact Elizabeth May in Central Nova. At best, the strategy may elect one Green in Central Nova, and in the other 307 ridings, a confused electorate which has been given no clear indication what the game plan is, will effectively help Conservatives by splitting the vote (See Chantal Hebert: May-Dion deal might work out for Harper).

The current strategy, therefore, having little chance of accomplishing the stated goal – to at all costs unseat Mr. Harper – then what prey tell is the real objective? To get Elizabeth May a seat in the house of commons? Surely there were easier ridings to pick than Central Nova. Based on the by-election results alone, London, for example was at least 50/50 even without Liberal support, and a slam-dunk with it. In this case, I suppose not making Glen Pearson the sacrificial lamb was more important than saving the planet.

And what of the NDP? There too, one heck of a gamble is being played out. Jack Layton is doing his best, and doing a decent job of it, criticizing the deal. He knows what buttons to push and which secrets to expose. On the other hand, it’s Mr. Layton, not Ms. May, who is the real figurative Ralph Nader and fly in the ointment? Mr. Layton has his own internal demons to face. The “not returning the call” is what’s preventing the left from uniting for the sake of this one issue, and depending on spin and how that spin is consumed, this will be Jack’s Waterloo. The only matter left to be determined is who survives.

I wish Andrew Coyne was right (see: Dion's real target? The NDP) and that perhaps a larger strategy was in play. However, this would require an understanding of how vote-splitting works, including its unintended consequences.

As for hoping the Dion-May strategy puts so much pressure on Jack Layton that he has to cave-in or be decimated, that is a very good thought, even an excellent thought, but to date Mr. Layton has proven himself unable and too partisan to face reality. I think Mr. Layton would rather go down as the guy that held-out and fantasizes that recent developments may lead to his own resurrection, instead of “working together” on the issue of the century.

Not so long ago the Right (Conservative, Alliance, Reform) learned the only way to win was to unite. I was even a staunch supporter of this. I can’t say I am thrilled with how the Conservative party has morphed into a dictatorship, but win it did, and win it will continue to do, at least as a minority.

The Left is at a crossroads. Mr. Dion and Ms. May have made the clumsiest of first moves, which on it’s current course, will not have the desired impact in the upcoming election.

Isn’t it ironic that Mr. Dion, the father of the Clarity Act, couldn’t be making the choice less clear in 306 other ridings? Are Greens supposed to vote Grit, or are Grits supposed to vote Green? Presumably the hidden message is Greens are supposed to vote Grit. How else is Mr. Dion supposed to become Prime Minister if in the other 306 ridings there truly is no deal in the making? Besides, Greens fractured support alone isn’t enough. They need Jack’s concentrated support. And that, my friends, is not happening this spring.

So where does this leave us? Simple, real simple. More than ever Mr. Harper is going to want to go now, not later. Mr. Harper has only his own evolution to know that sooner or later the left is going to unite. And even in this new world that is content with, even preferring minority governments and a strive toward some form of Proportional Representation, Mr. Harper’s chances aren’t likely to get a lot better. The good news for Mr. Dion is the 50/50 chance he’s bottomed out. The less good news is the ascent from current support levels will not be swift.

The problem for Mr. Harper is how to orchestrate his own defeat without looking like a fibber or a chess-master in light of a Liberal leader who may finally be figuring out he needs time; time for whatever good comes from unification and barring further implosion. The question remains, does Mr. Dion have enough players willing to play, and what about that time factor?

I suspect that for one of the players, Jack Layton, on the time factor, the leader of the NDP may suddenly change his tune. If Mr. Layton is correct – and we are still in the midst of finding this out – that the manner in which Mr. Dion and Ms. May have come together is laced with problems, then the opportunity for its detractors to do just that, detract, is huge.

Mr. Layton couldn’t get to a microphone fast enough last Friday. By contrast, we have yet to hear much, if anything, from a seemingly wiser and more patient Mr. Harper who I suspect is carefully reviewing and considering this latest twist. Soon enough, if he hasn’t already, Mr. Harper will figure things out and find himself at the Governor General’s door, quite possibly with Mr. Layton offering him the ride over on the back of his 10 speed.

Message to Mr. Dion and Ms. May, just remember nothing has changed. It's not about what you are doing, what you stand for, or what you hope to achieve; unfortunately it’s still about how others spin what you are doing. Your intentions are good, and the objective even honourable. However, the biggest problem you face, despite the clear warnings given, is how easy you’ve made it for some of your detractors (Harper, Layton, members in our own Party, and the public) to do what they do best, detract. Surely this was avoidable.

I always thought addressing "the issue of the century" was more important than proving it can be done on any one particular individual's terms. Mr. Layton isn’t the only suborn one, and the sooner all parties on the Left figure this out, the sooner we will have a workable solution.

Difficult solutions to difficult problems need not be made deliberately more complicated by a series of avoidable and silly decisions and mistakes along the way.  

 

April 16, 2007 

Coming Soon:

February 5, 2007 ... "Dithering dictators vs. the constituents' tongue"

Dion, Layton and come what May; the road to a personally difficult decision