CP reports relief among some Tories that they did not succeed in Thursday's vote:
Indeed that was the Universal Media Consensus before the event: that the Tories would have been better off to wait, rather than push for a spring vote. So, if their defeat is really a victory, why is everyone now declaring the Tories the losers? I can see why Harper would be disappointed: he had calculated that the Tories would be better off to topple the government now than later, and presumably still feels that way. But the UMC is that he was wrong. Maybe he was -- but if so, as I say, he wins by losing. On the other hand, if he was right -- if his rationale for seeking an early election was sound -- that remains true even though he did not succeed in forcing one. The tactic would only have been a mistake if the costs of failing in the attempt were greater than the expected value of the benefits had it succeeded. But in fact the campaign would seem to have yielded significant gains for the party. * They exposed the extraordinary lengths to which the Liberals were prepared to go to cling to power, in the process fatally undermining the Prime Minister's good-guy image. * They now have a base that is fired up like nobody's business, notwithstanding the party's acquiescence in Liberal spending and general blurring of policy distinctions. * Best of all, they got rid of Belinda, a hugely disruptive presence and long-term liability. Actually, it's better than that. They forced the Grits to take her on, and at the cost of a major cabinet appointment. Now they're stuck with her: The Minister of Complex Files. That's the gift that keeps on giving. Set against this is the perception that the party and its leader were power-hungry, obsessed with corruption at the expense of other issues of concern to voters: always saying what they were against rather than what they were for. Had they not been so eager to bring the government down, the argument runs, they would be much farther ahead in the polls by now. Perhaps. But polls have to be read longitudinally. Arguably, the Tories have given up some ground short-term, but in exchange for long-term damage to the Liberal brand. And it's not even clear they lost all that much in the short term. The thing that drove down Liberal numbers, remember, was Jean Brault's testimony. Before that they were comfortably ahead of the Tories. How long would it have taken for them to rebound, once the first shock of Brault's revelations had worn off? Remember, Martin was still widely viewed as a sympathetic figure, even then. Would there have been the budget-busting deal with the NDP had Martin not feared his government was in danger? Or the McGuinty deal? Probably not. Of course, if you're the Toronto Star, you like these. So, by the same logic that leads the paper to blame Harper for Martin's "seedy vote-buying," the paper should also give him credit for these initiatives, no?
They huffed and they puffed, and they failed to blow the House down, but Conservatives now seem surprisingly satisfied there will be no election soon.
Indeed that was the Universal Media Consensus before the event: that the Tories would have been better off to wait, rather than push for a spring vote. So, if their defeat is really a victory, why is everyone now declaring the Tories the losers? I can see why Harper would be disappointed: he had calculated that the Tories would be better off to topple the government now than later, and presumably still feels that way. But the UMC is that he was wrong. Maybe he was -- but if so, as I say, he wins by losing. On the other hand, if he was right -- if his rationale for seeking an early election was sound -- that remains true even though he did not succeed in forcing one. The tactic would only have been a mistake if the costs of failing in the attempt were greater than the expected value of the benefits had it succeeded. But in fact the campaign would seem to have yielded significant gains for the party. * They exposed the extraordinary lengths to which the Liberals were prepared to go to cling to power, in the process fatally undermining the Prime Minister's good-guy image. * They now have a base that is fired up like nobody's business, notwithstanding the party's acquiescence in Liberal spending and general blurring of policy distinctions. * Best of all, they got rid of Belinda, a hugely disruptive presence and long-term liability. Actually, it's better than that. They forced the Grits to take her on, and at the cost of a major cabinet appointment. Now they're stuck with her: The Minister of Complex Files. That's the gift that keeps on giving. Set against this is the perception that the party and its leader were power-hungry, obsessed with corruption at the expense of other issues of concern to voters: always saying what they were against rather than what they were for. Had they not been so eager to bring the government down, the argument runs, they would be much farther ahead in the polls by now. Perhaps. But polls have to be read longitudinally. Arguably, the Tories have given up some ground short-term, but in exchange for long-term damage to the Liberal brand. And it's not even clear they lost all that much in the short term. The thing that drove down Liberal numbers, remember, was Jean Brault's testimony. Before that they were comfortably ahead of the Tories. How long would it have taken for them to rebound, once the first shock of Brault's revelations had worn off? Remember, Martin was still widely viewed as a sympathetic figure, even then. Would there have been the budget-busting deal with the NDP had Martin not feared his government was in danger? Or the McGuinty deal? Probably not. Of course, if you're the Toronto Star, you like these. So, by the same logic that leads the paper to blame Harper for Martin's "seedy vote-buying," the paper should also give him credit for these initiatives, no?
5/23/2005
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
0 Comments