Trudeaumania Version 2.0?

Will Murray:

Well, the Liberal leadership race looks like it’s getting its first serious candidate (sorry paramedic from Manitoba).  Tonight, Justin Trudeau is set to announce he’s running for his party’s top job.  So, now that Justin is in, does this race turn into a coronation? Is he the right person for the job? How will he perform compared to Harper and Mulcair? And on the leadership question in general, what of the rules? How will they impact the race, and have any names emerged or retreated since we last talked leadership? 

Not for the first time, and not for the last, the Liberals are the topic for today’s discussion of Canada’s Least Watched Political Panel.

John Van Weringh:

It’ll only be a coronation if the other candidates treat it that way. We’ll certainly see how some high profile contenders feel about it in the next week or two, when they announce their decisions to or not to run. It’s in the party’s best interest to avoid it becoming a coronation, if for no other reason than they ought to figure out whether or not he could be the right person for the job – and a leadership campaign is a reasonable way to gauge that. 

WM:

On the surface, it certainly seems like Trudeau could win this one in a walk.  He'll likely be able to take advantage of the “supporters” category, and if some media reports are to be believed, a handful of other candidates won't bother running. I don't think such a race would be a good thing for the party.  I think it's important - for the long term success of the party - that the race acts as opportunity to test Trudeau.  Regardless, if he runs and wins he should be given at least two, if not three, elections to show what he can do.

The other point I’d like to make is on the last name.  Yes, Justin gets such a high profile because of his Dad, and yes people will talk about it, so in a sense it will have an impact, but I think it will be a much smaller impact than people think.   Justin will be judged on his own merit and abilities.  Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister 29 years ago.  There is an entire generation – and then some – of voters who don’t remember the Trudeau era at all.  It won’t change the confirmation bias that will unfold whether Justin succeeds or fails, but Justin’s performance will determine his popularity, not his last name.

JVW:

Yeah, I suspect the name essentially generates high expectations, which is great for him if he can meet them, but also means that there could be a backlash if he fails to meet them – or even if he looks like he’s trying to avoid making particularly substantive arguments. Indeed, there are already those who think he’s failed to meet them since being elected in 2008 – this perception that he’s an empty shirt. We’ll all know whether that’s true soon enough.

Greg Mills:

I suspect at least a few of the other mentioned contenders (and at least Marc Garneau) have enough support to fight out a decent leadership race and, win or lose, make it a decent competition. Whether or not some of the smaller camps decide it’s not worth the cost and decide to back out will be interesting to see though. I’ve never been on either the “For” or “Anyone But” Trudeau camps but over the last few months I’ve become more comfortable with the idea that Justin has the potential to be a successful politician with the ability to hold on to the job for a few elections – which is exactly what his party will need him to be.

What’s important for the Liberal Party to do now is recognize that a popular leader does not an electoral victory make. They still have a lot of work to do when it comes to rebuilding the grassroots, the fundraising machinery, and the electoral base, and while having a charming and popular leader might make those tasks easier, it certainly doesn’t do the work for them.

I found the Leadership Race’s rules pretty important to consider too, and from what I’ve been able to pick up on them they seem geared towards better ensuring the long-term sustainability of the party – limiting candidate’s debt to prevent wiping out another slate of candidate’s ability to compete again in their lifetime is supremely helpful.

WM:

I think the re-organizing part is absolutely key.  Without it, the leader won’t matter all that much. That being said, if the new leader, whoever it may be can hit the ground running and attract interest, the Liberals will have the opportunity to attract new people to this rebuilding process, something they sorely need.

JVW:

Which is the real advantage of Trudeau to the party - he can at least get people to actually stop and take a look. If they can present a vision that’s of interest, then they might be able to increase their vote share for the first time in over a decade.

 

GM:

Exactly - it’ll also be important to see how the Supporter-category affects this as well since it’s a new way for people who might be interested to get involved that’s unique to the LPC. Whether or not it draws in a substantive increase in votes or money or volunteers will depend more on the Party organization than the leader or leadership candidate that initially brings new people in.

I’m very unsure how Trudeau or Garneau will stack up against Harper and Mulcair, who are both arguably more seasoned politicians and have both demonstrated a comfort with hard, bare knuckle politics that I’m not sure either major Liberal contender can match. But on the other hand, a PhD Scientist/Space Hero or a charming, youthful schoolteacher would present very strong contrasts with both Harper and Mulcair.  

WM:

Indeed.  If the Liberals were in the Official Opposition and competing for power, I’d pick Garneau.  But, they most decidedly are not, so I’m not sure Garneau is the person to lead the party.  I think having a young leader stand in for a few elections is necessary, and inevitable, if the party wants to survive, so they may as well rip-off the band-aid and pick that person now.  Garneau is awesome.  He is also 63.  I don’t think that fits in what the Liberals need to do.

GM:

It’s also worth remembering the Dalton McGuinty example - recent plummet in popularity notwithstanding. Arguably McGuinty was not ready to lead the province when he first became the leader of the Ontario Liberals, and subsequently lost his first election. But he stayed in the job, he grew into the role, and the party’s pulled some surprising successes out of the last decade.

It’s an important case study for Trudeau’s team. He doesn’t need to be ready to be Prime Minister in 2015, because he’s never going to be. He needs to have the potential to grow into the role and if nothing else, I think he at least has that potential.

JVW:

An important question for the party, though, is whether they truly want to become the ‘party of Justin Trudeau’. I’m sure they’ve already had these discussions at the top, but that question is now put to the members, and they shouldn’t take it lightly. Regardless of how relevant and meaningful the grass roots or the local candidates might be, in a very meaningful sense, the party is all about the leader. The NDP was the party of Jack Layton, and is more and more the party of Tom Mulcair, while the Conservatives are in very many ways the party of Stephen Harper. Is the party ready – especially if they’re looking to follow him for at least the coming decade – to buy into what he’s selling, and really go with the image he’s projecting? We have a sense of the image he’s projecting, though I’d expect that to be molded and focused over the next eight months, but we’re still a bit in the dark as to what he’s selling, particularly policy. This might be good – he can simply adopt the most Liberal of Liberal values and policies – but it also might be bad – he might have a bunch of crazy ideas, or be a Zach Paikin devotee. He might also not particularly care about policy, which, if it were true and were visible to Canadians, could be a serious liability.

WM:

I think regardless of who they pick as leader, the Liberals need to stand behind and follow.  No knives or speculation after the first slip up.  I think Charest is a pretty good example of how far a party can go if it works together, is loyal to the leader, and gets out the vote.  Charest’s name was mud amongst all non-Liberals, but those who were Liberals got out and voted. 

Now, loyalty can’t be a blind one, and it can’t be one where people don’t speak up against top-down organization within the party.  Members need to take a role in organizing and drafting policy, but you can’t put the knife in the leader, you just can’t, and expect to be competitive.

Quebec Election Fallout

Will Murray:

Well, the Quebec election has come and gone, and the result is a PQ minority.  The Liberals, under Jean Charest, did better than expected, winning 50 seats and will now sit as the Official Opposition in the Legislature.  Mr. Charest, however, will not join them, having lost his seat in the riding of Sherbrooke.  So, what will the impact of a PQ minority be on the province of Quebec and on Canada in general? And what about the legacy of Jean Charest, a man who 28 years to the day of his election loss was first elected as a federal MP? And finally, for the federal parties, what will be the challenges they face in navigating Quebec’s political waters with the PQ in power? After a long sabbatical, Canada’s Least Watched Political Panel is back, and ready to discuss.  Greg and Will are here, while John is sitting this one out for religious reasons.

Greg Mills:

I think the biggest implication for both Quebec and Canada is that very little will change: The PQ minority is going to rely on either the CAQ or the Liberals for everything – even the other separatist party in the National Assembly, Quebec Solidaire, doesn’t hold enough seats to give the government what it wants.

This means the budget, the speech from the throne, and any attempt to legislate Marois’ “secularism charter” are likely going to have to be watered down substantially or dropped completely. A referendum in this mandate is almost certainly out of the question, and I won’t be surprised if the PQ government even has a hard time keeping their tuition fee promise.

The question in my mind is which camp will break first, separatists or students? Just a few months ago Marois looked like she was going to get booted out of her own party by the more hard line separatist wing – they won’t be pleased with the minority result and the compromises yet to come won’t help. Yet to keep power the PQ is going to have to cooperate with at least one of their rivals.

WM:

 I think the impact this has on the internal politics of the PQ is an important one to note.  Marois will likely get a honeymoon of sorts – the PQ did win – but a minority government that will be unable to be as aggressive as it would like to be on the language and sovereignty questions could certainly lead to some internal strife.  Charest resigning as the leader of the Liberals likely gives the PQ some breathing room as the Liberals regroup and find a new leader.  Things are likely going to be stable – as much as a minority government in Quebec can be – for the next little while.  While the Liberals regroup we could very well see some abstaining from votes – which seems to be the strategy de jour of Opposition parties in minority governments these days.

GM:

Agreed. As a side note: it’s going to be very interesting to see what happens to the CAQ over the next little while. A lot of their support came from former Quebec Liberals, who may return to the PLQ fold after a leadership change. Though, if Legault and his team manage to run an effective ship, that migration may actually continue.

At any rate the next election (which I’m guessing will likely be in a year or two) may be even more critical than this one.

 WM:

A couple of issues I’d note on that front. First, what will be the impact of the Charbonneau Commission? The inquiry into alleged corruption within the government is set to get underway this fall.  How damning will it be, and will there be political fallout?  It will be interesting to see how badly the Liberals are wounded by this now that they’re in Opposition.  I can’t remember the last time a previous government, now sitting in Opposition, wound up getting rapped on the knuckles by an inquiry and had it hurt them in the following election. 

The other thing I’ll note, it’s obvious the provincial Liberal machine is still a strong force. It brought a party many thought would finish 3^rd within four seats of forming the government. It’s a powerful machine and it will be interesting to see whether anyone in the federal Liberal leadership race can connect with it and make inroads in the province.  Obviously there’s no direct relationship between the federal and provincial Liberals, but I do think that the federal Liberals are in better shape than they could have been after this election.  Perception wise, the Liberal brand getting pushed to third by an upstart party wouldn’t have been a great way to kick off a leadership campaign.

GM:

Yes, I think it’s clear to say that rumors of the death of the PLQ have been greatly exaggerated. It’s telling that even in many of the parts of Montreal where, due to the student strikes and police response, some thought the Liberals would be most severely punished, they still won a majority (in some cases 60+%, which I find astounding for a ‘defeated’ party) of the popular vote in many ridings and kept a fairly firm grip on the Island.

I’m not sure how well all of that translates into the federal level, since the provincial Liberals aren’t directly tied to the federal ones (and likely overlap slightly with CPC support in some cases), but it certainly tells us that the brand itself still has a heartbeat. We’ll have to see how the federal New Democrats handle this result. They’re a mildly-federalist party which happens to share a lot of PQ support, and I wonder if and how Mulcair will be able to balance the need to hold onto largely PQ or QS supporters inside the province with the requirement that the NDP expand in provinces that have very non PQ-iste sympathies. And the Conservatives must be a little relieved, with so few Quebec MPs in their caucus they would have a hard time being credible in any referendum fight, and a PQ minority where centre-right federalists hold the balance of power should put their minds at relative ease.

The Charbonneau Commission won’t be pleasant, but I expect it will likely leave few Quebec politicians of any stripe untouched.  Its effects specifically on the PLQ may be mitigated as well, depending on who the next leader is and how well the party does at cleaning house. That being said, we’ll have to wait and see how it all plays out.

WM:

The fallout at the federal level will be very interesting to watch. Quebec, as always, will be a critical battleground in the 2016 election campaign, but it would likely be a mistake for anyone to try to craft electoral strategy around the results of this week’s provincial election.  I’m assuming there’s likely to be another provincial election in Quebec before we see the next federal election, so THAT election may prove to be more important than this one.

The challenge facing Mulcair will be exactly as you describe it.  Can he find a middle ground between holding onto his Quebec base, and expanding elsewhere in the country?   Oddly enough, the outcome of the federal Liberal leadership race may play a role here as well.  I think the NDP can probably thread the needle of appealing to Quebec, and not being seen as beholden to them in the rest of Canada if they are in an us versus them campaign against the Conservatives.  The NDP will try to paint itself as the government in waiting and the defecto alternative.  That can certainly work if the anger at the Tories grows in the years ahead, but the POTENTIAL challenge will be if the Liberals choose a leader committed to a strong central government offering no special status to Quebec.

If the Liberals are able to speak to that issue in English Canada I think it will have resonance, and could potentially put the NDP in a corner. 

It would very interesting to see how the NDP would approach a campaign against the Liberals if the new leader is Justin Trudeau - an MP from Quebec in favour of a strong, central government? I’m not necessarily a proponent of young Justin, but the hypothetical is interesting to think about, and perhaps fodder for next week when we discuss the Liberal leadership again.

WM: 

Finally, despite my snark over the last several weeks, I feel Jean Charest should be congratulated.  He's had a pretty remarkable career.  Elected as an MP for the first time in the 1984 federal election, he would lose his seat in 2012, 28 years to the day of that first win.  In that time there have been a lot of highs and a lot of lows.  

He served in Mulroney's Cabinet, won a majority government in Quebec in 2003 and 2008, and helped win the referendum for the No side in 1995. 

He was able to get up off the mat after some pretty devastating losses as well.  He lost the leadership race of 1993 to Kim Campbell (how the country would have been changed by a Charest win is a whole other discussion), he was one of only 2 MPs elected as PCs in 1993, and he would lose the 1998 provincial election after setting off to Quebec to be the federalist saviour. 

Obviously, the jury is still out on his time as Premier of Quebec, and there are some scandals that look like they will stick with that government for some time.  Still, 28 years of public service is something that should be applauded.