Priorities

There's been lots of talk, and for good reason, about Paul Wells' column catching Stephen Harper playing bait and switch with his five priorities. But I'm not sure that I share my fellow bloggers' view that this is anything approaching either a mistake, or an attempt to make the change without anybody noticing.

I'll start from the premise that however insulated Harper's bubble is, it's not quite so detached from reality that he'd believe that nobody would notice the sudden disappearance of one of the main talking points spouted steadily by him, his cabinet, and the bulk of his party since the start of the 2005 campaign. (I know, I shouldn't give him that much credit. But bear with me.) With that as a starting point, why would Harper make a move to change his priorities when the change would almost certainly be caught?

I can see two possible angles on it. One is that Harper genuinely wants to see the wait times issue dealt with, and recognizes that so far the initiative has been met with rightful disdain from provinces who aren't about to tie themselves down to a guarantee for nothing in return. By selectively omitting the issue from his own priorities, Harper is getting more people to talk about it than have over the past few months...with the prospect that he'll then be able to turn that attention into an argument in favour of action later on.

In other words, the current shift could be a misdirection ploy. Rather than going out and trying to sell the issue knowing that he's bound to meet opposition in doing so, he could be counting on people opposing his choice to drop the issue, and thereby seeking a mandate to push it later on.

The other possible angle would involve Harper's wanting to buy ever so slightly into the "natural governing party" role. No, he wouldn't want to open himself up to the accusations of utter aimlessness that dogged XPMPM, but maybe Harper could see potential to seem somewhat more flexible and centrist by being willing to abandon one priority which has received little public support and lots of provincial outcry. At the same time, he'd still be carrying out the quintessential governmental role of claiming to have accomplished everything he wanted to in the process, and avoiding the show of weakness that comes from outright admitting defeat.

Sure, it doesn't fit with the "honest" image that the Cons tried to pitch last time out. But maybe Harper recognizes that such a label is going to be awfully tough to maintain anyway now that he's in power, and is instead planning to try to claim to be the pragmatic choice.

As an added bonus alongside either of the above strategies, the story should help to focus attention back on the other four past priorities long after they'd have otherwise been forgotten by everyone but the Cons' PR team. And if that means less attention for the softwood debacle which the Cons now can't avoid as an ongoing issue, then all the better for Harper's reputation as a manager.

Granted, I wouldn't see any of the above angles as the best possible political maneuver for Harper. But they all make far more sense to me than an assumption that he's clueless enough to think he could change his signature priorities without anybody noticing.

Update: If Harper's goal is indeed to win undue praise for backing off his party's original bad idea, he's picked some up already.