How to win friends and influence policy

Jim Stanford nicely pegs the best possible outcome for child care under the Con government. But he seems to miss the point in how to get there:

Fiscally, Ottawa can easily afford both the Conservatives' baby bonus (worth something over $1.5-billion per year, net of taxes collected) and continuing federal contributions to the national program (worth another $1-billion per year). In that regard, we could have our daycare cake, and eat it, too. The opposition parties could then approve Mr. Harper's first budget, on condition that it include a five-year funding commitment to the national program. This sort of compromise should be a no-brainer in a minority situation.

Unfortunately, it won't be that simple. Nobody wants another election, of course (we didn't want one last Christmas either), and Mr. Harper will use this to play chicken — governing as if he actually won a majority. Meanwhile, the opposition parties, perversely, are still as focused on outfoxing each other, as on preventing the destruction of the first new national social program in decades...

We need the direct power of public opinion, undiluted by parliamentary machinations, to stop Mr. Harper — something like that famous “Goodbye Charlie Brown” moment that stopped Brian Mulroney from de-indexing pensions two decades ago.

Obviously the public-opinion side of the issue is an important one. But it's only through parliamentary machinations that any plan can actually pass, and it's hard to see how Stanford can fail to notice how those machinations line up perfectly to ensure just the compromise above...as long as the NDP takes the lead role in brokering a deal.

It seems fairly clear that the Libs are bent on posturing as best they can rather than working toward a consensus deal. But that posturing should readily lead to a productive good-cop, bad-cop scenario. With the Libs bent on opposing as if they too had a majority, the NDP can point out its comparative willingness to make a deal...if the Cons in turn are willing to reach the obvious compromise.

Moreover, as the one party which actually proposed a relatively similar plan within its platform, the Dippers won't lose political face in making the offer. About the only possible downside is the potential risk to Layton's deal-maker reputation if the Cons turn up their noses...but if the result of a refusal would be another election, one can easily see Harper accepting the compromise while claiming victory.

In contrast, any attempt to preserve the child-care deals through public pressure to have the Cons make the first move is doomed to failure. After all, Harper has shown no interest at all in publicly acknowledging any view other than his own ideology since he took power. And in light of his newfound macho, fight-until-the-end persona, he surely can't afford to be seen as the first leader to blink.

But that said, he can surely understand the language of power. And the carrot-and-stick of either accepting a reasonable compromise or facing the voters should be enough to bring about a deal.

The public opinion is indeed an important factor, particularly to ensure that Harper recognizes the downside of refusing an offer once it's made. But the sensible compromise can only be reached through political means...and Stanford seems to be going out of his way to avoid recognizing which party holds the only realistic chance of making the obvious solution a reality.