All or nothing

Yesterday, I noted that Stephen Harper's throne speech ultimatum posed plenty more risk to the Cons than the media's first reports suggested. On further review, the point needs to be strengthened: if the opposition reacts even halfway competently to Harper's message, then the ultimatum will turn into a strategic train wreck for the Cons.

While Harper's message strictly only referred to individual confidence votes, its overall thrust was clear: he's not willing to govern if he doesn't have a majority of votes in Parliament to support the Con agenda in full.

So what's the problem with that message? Rather than allowing the Cons to draw any distinctions based on their perceived strengths, it allows each opposition party to place the focus on the most problematic Con declaration as its reason for voting down the throne speech - and to place the blame squarely on Harper. The end result would be a series of bipolar issue battles - with the Cons voluntarily taking the weaker position in each.

For example, the Cons will presumably include some mention of limits on federal spending powers in order to put pressure on the Bloc. But thanks to Harper's ultimatum, Gilles Duceppe will be able to counter by saying, "Stephen Harper says we can't limit federal spending powers without also giving him a combat extension in Afghanistan. We say Stephen Harper can't dictate that all-or-nothing choice from Ottawa."

Likewise, Jack Layton will be able to point out Harper's refusal to move on accountability or electoral reform without also pursuing privatization and deep integration. And Stephane Dion can take away the Cons' momentum on tax cuts by pointing out that it's possible to offer the same without accepting Harper's inaction on the environment.

And in all cases, it'll be Harper himself who's forced the choice. Which will leave the Cons trying to explain why Canadians should have to take the parts of the Cons' agenda which they don't want in order to get the few positive ones - and highlight the ideological chasm between the Cons and the country in the process.

What's more, it'll also be possible to attack Harper's ultimatum as a broader theme. Surely it would be one of the more memorable moments of a leaders' debate for Harper to try to justify the strategy, and Layton or Dion to respond, "Obviously Mr. Harper thinks that leadership means refusing to listen to anybody's ideas but your own. That's simply wrong - and it's long past time that we had a government which shared my position."

In sum, Harper is banking on winning an election on Lib/Bloc disarray and "decisiveness", while conceding effectively every swing issue and reinforcing his own most negative traits in order to get to the polls in the first place. And while he may not be able to afford to backtrack now (see "decisiveness" on the Cons' short list of positives), Harper may have just offered the opposition parties the boost they need to boot him from office entirely.