On a Probable Election
Aug. 14th, 2021 09:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jsburbidgeThe structure of our current government (and that of our cousins in Westminster) practically requires that leaders in a minority situation ("hung Parliament") call elections when they are riding high. At least in a majority government elections are, at worst, even-handed: you might be up or down when you run out of time. In a minority, you know that after enough time has passed since the last election the opposition parties will be eager to bring down the government if and when it is unpopular. So minority governments end early, either when the opposition sees a chance to do better than it did last time, or when governments see a chance to forestall that risk. (Campaigns make a difference. If you handle it wrong, you end up like Theresa May.)
(This does, of course, assume that a government is "about" power rather than achieving ends, and in practice our current structure in which permanent parties form governments pretty well guarantees that that will be the case. You get power first, if necessary by watering down promises to be as little objectionable to middle of the road voters, then govern by introducing measures which will not upset the group's who elected you.
There's a story about that, at least in Canada... In the very early seventies, PET did a media interview in which he expressed the view (uncontroversial to a political scientist, which is what he had been, or to an historian of the Westminster style political systems) that governments were elected on the basis that the representatives would use their best judgement in determining what to legislate, and that democratic feedback comes at the next election cycle. In particular, a government should be guided by good policy rather than immediate popularity of its policies. This was wildly unpopular. Many voters, though living in a representative democracy, want the benefits of direct democracy - immediate feedback. (They usually don't want the drawback of a functional direct democracy, which is that everyone has to take considerable effort in educating themselves on at least the important issues, going well beyond reading the news occasionally.) That's why recall mechanisms are popular with populist platforms, such as that backed by the original Reform Party.
The Liberal Party was reduced to a minority government in the following election, partly as a result of that response. Since then it's been pretty clear that in practice coherent policy will tend to take a back seat to tailoring initiatives to what will not be too unpopular, at least with the Liberals.)
I expect this to be, generally, an election where the Liberals use a front-runner campaign: heavy in accomplishments, with a relatively anodyne platform designed not to drive anyone off who might already be considering voting Liberal. I could be wrong, though. One of the big advantages of the Liberals is that the Conservatives are both divided and, as a whole, unlikely to unite around policies which might appeal to swing voters. O'Toole seems to be trying to move somewhat in that direction, but he has to deal with social Conservatives, libertarians who object to sensible public health measures, and Harperites who want to nail their colours to the mast of Big Oil in the middle of the hottest year on record. (Not that the Liberals are immune on that last point. A recent headline had them saying they needed pipeline revenue to fight climate change, which is really just bonkers.) The NDP has a lukewarm platform - aiming at middle of the road voters - and a personally popular leader, at least compared to Trudeau. (Trudeau retains personal charisma; but he now has a significant block of electors among potential swing voters who wish he'd inherited his father's intelligence as well.)
It's just possible that the Liberals could campaign on a big platform designed to exacerbate the weaknesses of the other two parties - pushing for sweeping new changes to address disparities the pandemic revealed and to take aggressive action on climate change. This would have two advantages: it would heavily differentiate them from the CPC, and it might put them far enough left to weaken the NDP. It has one big disadvantage: medium voters who just want to get back to normal who would reject such a platform in favour of a business as usual approach, which would be O'Toole's platform.
I do expect the Liberals to make strategic announcements designed to both distinguish themselves from the PCs and make the PC response likely to include embarassing reactions from some if the PC candidates. I certainly expect them to talk a lot about climate change, given recent heatwaves, wildfires, and the IPCC report (as well as the upcoming climate conference in Scotland). But I expect those to be secondary elements in what will otherwise be a front-runners race. (Also, if they were inclined to run on a big change platform, the obvious thing to do would be to reconvene Parliament, put the platform in the Speech from the Throne, and then either call an election on its failure or govern aggressively based on its passage, and the passage of all the implementing bills, which would all be votes of confidence... they are not doing this.)
I expect the Conservatives to campaign as though the Liberals had such a platform but were keeping it secret. About the only thing their disparate combination of factions can unite behind is a return to the status quo ante, and they will depict the Liberals as disturbers of that status quo, and as untrustworthy on other grounds (the current fight with the Speaker, the MeToWe controversy, etc.).
I expect the NDP to campaign (as they have recently) as Mackenzie King's "Liberals in a hurry" in an attempt to expand their centrist vote. As recent experience has indicated a hard ceiling on the NDP vote in critical areas I do not think that this will succeed; they might pull some votes away from the Liberals but probably not as many as last election.
The Greens ... what can be said about the Greens other than that they are showing themselves to be at least as good as the Conservatives at stabbing themselves in the foot? Maybe that they are also a reminder of the old fights between splintering factions in the left throughout the Twentieth Century. This is good for the NDP and accordingly a bit of a negative for the Liberals.
On Covid ... there's certainly an argument to be made that given our current vaccination levels we are little more at risk (or less at risk) than we will be at any time in the next two years. (Risk could easily increase if a variant more problematic than Delta arises.) I don't expect anyone to make that argument, because it's part of the unpopular position (based on incontrovertible fact! I see Ontario is backtracking on several opening-up promises, as is Alberta) that there will be no return to the status quo ante. The Liberals and NDP may tacitly rely on that, but they're not going to trumpet it or its implications. There is certainly an argument that voting by mail should not only have resources allocated for a heavier vote than usual but encouraged, and that campaign tours should be curtailed or abolished.
(This does, of course, assume that a government is "about" power rather than achieving ends, and in practice our current structure in which permanent parties form governments pretty well guarantees that that will be the case. You get power first, if necessary by watering down promises to be as little objectionable to middle of the road voters, then govern by introducing measures which will not upset the group's who elected you.
There's a story about that, at least in Canada... In the very early seventies, PET did a media interview in which he expressed the view (uncontroversial to a political scientist, which is what he had been, or to an historian of the Westminster style political systems) that governments were elected on the basis that the representatives would use their best judgement in determining what to legislate, and that democratic feedback comes at the next election cycle. In particular, a government should be guided by good policy rather than immediate popularity of its policies. This was wildly unpopular. Many voters, though living in a representative democracy, want the benefits of direct democracy - immediate feedback. (They usually don't want the drawback of a functional direct democracy, which is that everyone has to take considerable effort in educating themselves on at least the important issues, going well beyond reading the news occasionally.) That's why recall mechanisms are popular with populist platforms, such as that backed by the original Reform Party.
The Liberal Party was reduced to a minority government in the following election, partly as a result of that response. Since then it's been pretty clear that in practice coherent policy will tend to take a back seat to tailoring initiatives to what will not be too unpopular, at least with the Liberals.)
I expect this to be, generally, an election where the Liberals use a front-runner campaign: heavy in accomplishments, with a relatively anodyne platform designed not to drive anyone off who might already be considering voting Liberal. I could be wrong, though. One of the big advantages of the Liberals is that the Conservatives are both divided and, as a whole, unlikely to unite around policies which might appeal to swing voters. O'Toole seems to be trying to move somewhat in that direction, but he has to deal with social Conservatives, libertarians who object to sensible public health measures, and Harperites who want to nail their colours to the mast of Big Oil in the middle of the hottest year on record. (Not that the Liberals are immune on that last point. A recent headline had them saying they needed pipeline revenue to fight climate change, which is really just bonkers.) The NDP has a lukewarm platform - aiming at middle of the road voters - and a personally popular leader, at least compared to Trudeau. (Trudeau retains personal charisma; but he now has a significant block of electors among potential swing voters who wish he'd inherited his father's intelligence as well.)
It's just possible that the Liberals could campaign on a big platform designed to exacerbate the weaknesses of the other two parties - pushing for sweeping new changes to address disparities the pandemic revealed and to take aggressive action on climate change. This would have two advantages: it would heavily differentiate them from the CPC, and it might put them far enough left to weaken the NDP. It has one big disadvantage: medium voters who just want to get back to normal who would reject such a platform in favour of a business as usual approach, which would be O'Toole's platform.
I do expect the Liberals to make strategic announcements designed to both distinguish themselves from the PCs and make the PC response likely to include embarassing reactions from some if the PC candidates. I certainly expect them to talk a lot about climate change, given recent heatwaves, wildfires, and the IPCC report (as well as the upcoming climate conference in Scotland). But I expect those to be secondary elements in what will otherwise be a front-runners race. (Also, if they were inclined to run on a big change platform, the obvious thing to do would be to reconvene Parliament, put the platform in the Speech from the Throne, and then either call an election on its failure or govern aggressively based on its passage, and the passage of all the implementing bills, which would all be votes of confidence... they are not doing this.)
I expect the Conservatives to campaign as though the Liberals had such a platform but were keeping it secret. About the only thing their disparate combination of factions can unite behind is a return to the status quo ante, and they will depict the Liberals as disturbers of that status quo, and as untrustworthy on other grounds (the current fight with the Speaker, the MeToWe controversy, etc.).
I expect the NDP to campaign (as they have recently) as Mackenzie King's "Liberals in a hurry" in an attempt to expand their centrist vote. As recent experience has indicated a hard ceiling on the NDP vote in critical areas I do not think that this will succeed; they might pull some votes away from the Liberals but probably not as many as last election.
The Greens ... what can be said about the Greens other than that they are showing themselves to be at least as good as the Conservatives at stabbing themselves in the foot? Maybe that they are also a reminder of the old fights between splintering factions in the left throughout the Twentieth Century. This is good for the NDP and accordingly a bit of a negative for the Liberals.
On Covid ... there's certainly an argument to be made that given our current vaccination levels we are little more at risk (or less at risk) than we will be at any time in the next two years. (Risk could easily increase if a variant more problematic than Delta arises.) I don't expect anyone to make that argument, because it's part of the unpopular position (based on incontrovertible fact! I see Ontario is backtracking on several opening-up promises, as is Alberta) that there will be no return to the status quo ante. The Liberals and NDP may tacitly rely on that, but they're not going to trumpet it or its implications. There is certainly an argument that voting by mail should not only have resources allocated for a heavier vote than usual but encouraged, and that campaign tours should be curtailed or abolished.
no subject
Date: 2021-08-14 02:37 pm (UTC)I figure it's at least medium odds that campaign tours are going to kill (with COVID) someone notable.
I figure we're ... two? election cycles (it should have happened already) when the expectation hardens that if you've had COVID you must leave public life, leave any positions of responsibility, re-do your professional certifications, etc. because you're going to lose capacity and it's just not a given you can do your job anymore.
The Conservatives and the NDP and the Greens are effectively all the same party; they wish to have, be seen as having, and make policies which enable, moral correctness. Their constructions of what constitutes moral correctness are wildly disparate, but the desire and the evident-or-expected disastrous incompetence in government stems from this same cause for all of them. (I remember the Ed Broadbent NDP, and wish they were around to vote for.)
This time around I'm voting for proportion of numeracy in cabinet. CPC'll be negative for new and exciting values of negative, NDP'll be negative, Greens aren't anything like an option and would be another novel value of negative. Which is why we keep getting such terrible liberal governments, but the thought of the CPC or NDP pandemic response is just harrowing. I don't for a minute think it was primarily le dauphine who took the "cover all the bases" approach on vaccines, but I do think the whole cabinet has now gone "that worked OK" and accepted a certain brand commitment to a sciency response.
The NDP would want to have an effective response on vaccines, would also want to be seen as fiscally responsible and as not compelling anyone to do anything involuntary, and it would not have gone well at all.
The CPC would have written legislation requiring people to not isolate, then legislation requiring people to quarantine in their place of work, then legislation requiring those contracting COVID to compensate their employer for lost productivity. (encourages personal responsibility, don't you know.) We'd have a much, much worse homelessness problem and overt mass evictions. And likely no reliable vaccine supply.