Post-mortem on how the Liberals left Sussex Drive
What went wrong during the last federal election? Chances are the Conservatives aren’t asking that question, but it was the theme of a conference held on March 3 that examined the factors that prevented the Liberals from forming a government after 13 years in power.
The forum, co-sponsored by the Department of Political Science and the School of Community and Public Affairs (SCPA), brought together five experts ,including former Environment minister Stéphane Dion and Jean Chrétien’s former director of communications, Peter Donolo.
Although they all had their own unique insights, they agreed that Liberal misfortune in last January’s federal election could largely be explained in two words: sponsorship scandal.
“The Liberals lost because it is difficult to get people to vote for you if they doubt your honesty,” Dion said to the standing-room only crowd in the J.A. DeSève Cinema.
“We need as a party to come back and say we’re proud Liberals, or we will have difficulties convincing people in light of our record.” Dion, a high-ranking Liberal and reputedly a candidate for leadership of the party, said even he tried to put some distance between himself and the banner he runs under.
“Before when I campaigned as a Liberal, it was very helpful. This time, I was Stéphane Dion.”
He added that the fact that the sponsorship scandal eclipsed health care as this campaign’s most salient issue spoke volumes about the mindset of voters and their priorities.
From a public relations perspective, Donolo said that the Liberal ads – especially one that suggested Harper would put soldiers in the streets, which was quickly yanked – “undermined the credibility of the entire anti-Harper campaign.”
In the Harper camp, he said that perhaps the greatest Conservative strength was their ability to take Harper — who many Canadians perceived as “a beady-eyed, scary intellectual” – and morph him into “a soccer dad.”
Earlier in the seminar, Harold Clarke, a professor at the University of Texas, had pointed to the tenuous Conservative minority government, and said that if Harper “had been a popular leader, we would have a majority Tory government today.”
McGill’s Elisabeth Gidengil said the Conservatives did get more votes this time around from groups that traditionally vote Liberal, such as Catholics, minorities and young voters. They also got most of the union vote.
“The NDP absorbed lost Liberal support in the 2004 election. In 2006, it was the Conservatives.”
This trend didn’t take in some Liberal strongholds in central Canada however, where the Conservatives were still shut out. Especially in urban centres, even hardcore NDP supporters defected to the Liberals to ensure the continuity of a moderate Liberal (versus a right-wing Conservative) parliament.
“The Conservatives didn’t crack a single seat in Toronto, in light of the Boxing Day shooting and their tough line on crime,” Donolo noted.
They may have won the battle, but all agreed they are far from forming a new Conservative dynasty. In his opening remarks, moderator and SCPA Principal Daniel Salée said it is important to put the Conservative victory into perspective: “Their minority government is even weaker than the previous government of Paul Martin.”
Clarke echoed this observation: “They have opportunities, but certainly no guarantees.”
The election was examined from another angle three days later, when Concordia’s Special Communications Advisor to the President, John Parisella, took centre stage at a University of the Streets Café discussion about the implications of a new government upon national unity and Quebec.
Parisella was chief of staff to former Quebec Liberal premiers Robert Bourassa and Daniel Johnson, and is also a regular political commentator on 940 News.