Let's make a deal

Much of Greg's analysis of the potential problems in any environmental deal between the NDP and the Cons appears to be spot on. But there is one area where there's more reason for hope than he seems to suggest:

NDP supporters are very suspicious of Harper's motives and his willingness to follow through on anything Layton can squeeze out of him. Without an iron clad guarantee that Harper will move and move hard on greenhouse gas emissions (which I for one do not see coming), Layton will face a revolt among his base and all this maneuvering will have been for naught. If, on the other hand, Layton does somehow get those guarantees from Harper and it looks like he might actually do something substantial on this file, Harper may face his own revolt from his base.

In my view, it's far from clear that Harper would necessarily face much of a revolt based on an effective environmental plan. It shouldn't be hard for Harper to sell the position that the alternative to his taking action now would be a similar Lib move toward strict regulation after a future election. And if that message takes, then the question for the Cons' corporate supporters will be that of which of Harper or Dion will do more to counterbalance the perceived downside.

Which could hint both at where there's some wiggle room in the NDP's current position, and where Harper will go with his budgetary policy.

It originally struck me as curious that Harper would distract from his cabinet shuffle by discussing the Cons' plans for future tax cuts. But it might serve the Cons well to play up that angle as the first message to its corporate base, with the "but..." yet to come consisting of the need to invest in serious greenhouse gas emissions reduction with part of the spoils.

Meanwhile, the NDP can easily enough place its focus on ends rather than means, and argue that however distasteful it may be to offer tax reductions or incentives to the oil patch and other big businesses, it'll be worth it if the result is a real reduction in emissions. Moreover, any general tax measures (as opposed to specific incentives aimed at emissions reduction) would likely be included in a budget where the Cons are counting on Bloc support, not in any environmental legislation - meaning that the NDP wouldn't even have to vote for the side of the equation which would be most distasteful to Dippers.

In sum, it's readily foreseeable how the Cons could commit to strong emissions reduction targets without either doing any substantial harm to their base, or demanding terms which the NDP couldn't accept. And given the track record of Harper's attempts to negotiate with Layton, it's not unlikely that Layton may get Harper to move from his current position without surrending much (or any) territory in the process.

Granted, it's entirely possible that the Cons will instead refuse to do anything more than try to win NDP approval for a plan just as pitiful as their initial Clean Air Act. And I'd agree entirely with Greg that if the Cons do take that position, there's no reason at all for Layton to play along. After all, the NDP would still have the opportunity to broker an opposition deal - and if the Libs continue to insist on doing nothing in the current Parliament, then the NDP will be far better served presenting itself as the lone party fighting for immediate and effective action than as a willing fig leaf for the Cons.

But while that looms as the downside outcome, there's no reason why the Cons couldn't sell a legitimate piece of legislation to their base. The only question is whether PMS recognizes that to be in his party's best interests - and proving that point may be the most important part of the NDP's sales pitch in seeking a deal.