rabble.ca Canadian federal election blog

The Greens and the NDP launch their election ships

By Murray Dobbin

There are few surprises in the Liberal and Conservative election opening rounds but it is interesting to examine how the NDP and Greens - competing with each other as well as with the two Bay Street parties - have launched their campaigns.

The NDP’s Layton broke with past campaigns in two important ways. First, he is making his attacks almost exclusively on Stephen Harper, moving decisively away from the 2004 and 2006 election strategy of giving almost as much attention to the Liberals. This may be because the NDP recognize Dion is already weak and attacking him could give Harper a victory. Equally important, Layton is actually talking about the economy, significant for a party which avoided the topic like the plague for decades because pollsters told them they weren’t trusted on the economy. Duh. Why would you trust someone on an issue you refused to talk about? His pledge to roll back corporate tax cuts and use the money for a green industrial strategy is an interesting blending that takes advantage of three of Harper’s weaknesses: obscene corporate tax cuts, a do-nothing neo-liberal economic policy and Harper’s vulnerability on the environment.

I was disappointed that the party has maintained its strategic decision to leave the Afghan conflict out of the issue mix - just when Harper is most vulnerable and the war is going badly. But I can see their reasoning. Harper has successfully framed the issue around “support our troops” and trying to reframe that in 5 weeks is extremely difficult. I was more disappointed that the party is using cheap populist appeal on bank, cell phone and credit card charges and will not be making Harper’s extremist deregulation agenda front and centre. People are still dying from bad meat - quite possibly as a direct result of Harper’s move to self regulation of food safety. They are implementing the same scheme for airline safety - both would make great TV ads.

It was really encouraging to hear Elizabeth May actually get back to her previous principled stand re: the Green Party’s electoral role saying a successful Green campaign is not focussed on “seat counts or power” but rather prompting a “..dramatic increase in voter turnout and awareness of issues such as climate change and poverty.” She promised to reject “old-style politics” and “… never allow power to overcome principle.” May said nothing about actual policies or platform in her opening statement.

If she meant what she said about seat counts why has she not followed the policy of her Green Party colleagues in the U.S. who do not run candidates against Democrats who have a chance of winning in fights with Republicans? The Greens are running in every riding and that will almost inevitably mean defeats for Liberals and NDPers - and more Harperites winning their seats as happened in 2004 and 2006. The only explanation is the federal election financing formula where parties get yearly cash for every vote cast for them.

As for power versus principle, she has a lot to explain in embracing a discredited and discarded Liberal MP - who just three weeks ago was saying he was about to rejoin the Liberal caucus. He reportedly threatened to run as an independent and thought it would work - and when the Liberals didn’t budge he turned Green. He was kicked out for not revealing all to the party about his history and for public family feuding, numerous business failures and a habit of litigation. The almost certain result of his running (and almost certainly losing) for the Greens: the defeat of the new Liberal candidate and the election of John Weston, the Conservative who lost by only 1,000 votes last time. That’s high stakes poker for someone committed to rejecting old style politics.