The real target is the NDP
It’s easy to see what the Greens get out of the deal: a shot at a seat in Parliament, with the Liberals withdrawing in Central Nova in favour of Ms May. (I’m told David Orchard has agreed to work on her campaign team.) But what do the Liberals get out of it? It’s not as if Mr. Dion’s credentials as an environmentalist are in doubt: to the contrary, he’s regarded as sincere to a fault. And the absence of a Green candidate in St.-Laurent-Cartierville is hardly crucial to his chances of retaining the seat.
Indeed, the scheme could well backfire even in Central Nova. If you add the Liberal and Green vote together from the last election, they don’t even come in second, let alone threaten Peter MacKay’s hold on the riding. And a lot of local Liberals will be put out to find themselves without a candidate. They may stay home, vote NDP, even vote Conservative.
That’s what you’ll be reading. Indeed, that’s what you have been reading, in this column for starters. But what if I’m wrong? (Inconceivable, I know, but just for the sake of argument.) What if there’s a method in all this? What might it be?
It’s pretty clear there’s a larger game being played here than just electing Mr. Dion or Ms May, and larger stakes than just Central Nova. Even at yesterday’s joint press conference, there were hints that similar arrangements might be worked out in other ridings. Which suggests the real target of this operation is not Mr. MacKay. It’s the NDP.
If Ms May were to be elected to Parliament -- to say nothing of toppling Mr. MacKay -- it would give the Greens instant credibility as a political party. This would obviously be very bad news for the NDP, which has already seen some of its support bleed to the Greens. But just the sight of Ms. May and Mr. Dion together is likely to put pressure on Jack Layton: if they’re willing to put partisanship aside “to save the planet,” why aren’t you? You talk a good game on global warming, but if you really believed it, you wouldn’t be splitting the vote.
What we may be witnessing, in other words, is a squeeze play on the NDP (and, to a lesser extent, the Bloc), designed to force them -- or their supporters -- into a stop-Harper coalition built around global warming. Having lost much of his initial advantage on the issue, Mr. Dion is, in the language of gamblers, “doubling down”: even as the Conservatives have turned several shades of green in an effort to neutralize the issue, Mr. Dion is betting even more heavily on it.
Can’t he read? Didn’t he see the advice of A. Columnist that “nobody wins elections on the environment?” Doesn’t he know that the median voter has uncertain, conflicted views on the subject, and is unlikely to base his choice on it? But it may not be the median voter he has in mind. It may be that Mr. Dion’s ambition is not to split off centrist voters from the Tories, but to unite the left -- that he hopes to use global warming, and the white-hot passion it excites among certain sections of the left, as a kind of blast furnace, melting partisan differences into a European-style rassemblement des gauches.
There have been signs of that already: the three parties have been cooperating to a quite unusual degree, not limited to their strident defence of the Kyoto treaty. The NDP, in particular, is clearly feeling the strain. Some prominent New Democrats (Bob Rae, Ujjal Dosanjh) have defected to the Liberals, while others have mused publicly about a merger, or at least some sort of coalition. Mr. Dion may now have decided to force the issue. Indeed, I'd say the chances of a spring election have just increased. If there must be an election, he may have reasoned, it might as well be on my chosen battleground.
It’s a huge risk, as I said off the top: in rounding up the left, he is in danger of losing touch with the centre. But Mr. Dion is nothing if not a risk-taker -- a trait he has in common with Mr. Harper. Say what you will about either man, you can’t say they lack nerve.
4/14/2007
