Harper's “Prentice moments” were no mistake

At this early point in this long election campaign, I expect people will have turned their attention to the first leaders debate.

That's understandable, but let's not allow a couple of opening shots by the prime minister to be swept away by the flow of events before voters have a good chance to consider them.

There's a second new tactic on display in Stephen Harper's election arsenal. The first was to call the election early, creating the longest campaign in Canadian history. Pundits are welcome to go back and forth over that, to find out if the decision was actually useful.

I'm interested in the second tactic: Harper's over-the-top attacks on “the enemy.”

Not once, but twice so far in this campaign, Harper has gone out of his way to belittle the premiers of provinces whose support he will desperately need if he is to win another mandate. By way of what can only be construed as slurs against Ontario's Kathleen Wynne's government and that of Alberta's Rachel Notley, he also directly insulted the voters who elected them.

This was not just divisive, it was deliberate, and planned.

Ordinarily, actively alienating a sitting premier is not a good tactic in a federal election campaign. Recall back to 2008, when Newfoundland premier Danny Williams became incensed after he felt Harper had lied to him during a dispute over federal-provincial equalization.

Williams pulled the Canadian flag down off provincial buildings and endorsed an “Anything But Conservative” campaign in the following election. The result? Zero Conservative seats in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So what's his strategy with this open hostility to Kathleen Wynne and Rachel Notley? Is a similar shot at B.C.'s Christie Clark also in the works?

Ontario and Ottawa are at odds over infrastructure funding and a proposed provincial pension plan. Wynne complains that Harper simply won't return her calls and — as a Liberal leader herself — endorsed the federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau in the election.

Harper's response was simple arrogance. He said he recalled some early advice he received, that as prime minister he'd have best relations with premiers “who are doing a good job.”

In Harper's eyes “doing a good job” equals “being a Conservative.”

Economically, the federal government is not out-performing Ontario to any great degree. In fact, if there's any uptick in Canada's economic stats, it's due to manufacturing and exports numbers from Ontario. If Wynne's government has been in deficit budget positions, well, look at the numbers on Harper's record.

It just seems counter-intuitive to go out of your way to slag your partners in Confederation at a time when you are looking for support.

But Harper doubled down when he outright accused Rachel Notley's NDP government of incompetence.

Speaking in French for a small audience in Laval Quebec, Harper called the Alberta government a disaster. Twice. He said they were “incapable” of producing a budget. He said the government of Alberta is a “failed experiment.”

What's with that?

Harper himself was “incapable” of producing a budget earlier this year, on the deadline required. The downturn in federal revenue from natural resources (read: Alberta oilsands) needed more study, he said.

Harper's close friend and former cabinet colleague Jim Prentice was likewise unable to produce a budget on time, during his very brief tenure as premier — and in provincial politics.

In fact, it took mere minutes for commenters to call Harper's attack on the just-elected Alberta government a “full Prentice” moment.

Budget math must be hard, right?

Why would a political schemer like Stephen Harper think that insulting Alberta voters — who had just turfed a worn-out Tory dynasty — would be a good idea?

I believe Harper isn't looking for the votes of people who wanted a change in Alberta. He's not out to change minds or persuade anybody. Rather, he's out to galvanize his core, to rally them in what he see is an “us-against-them” war.

For some reason, in Harper's eyes, we're not all Canadians anymore. We're either Conservatives or something else. Harper doesn't want to unite Canadians behind a vision for us all, he just wants another mandate from his traditional core. And he wants to make sure that core all comes out to vote against change.

Remember how Harper once bragged that Canadian values are Conservative values. That was at a time when he had just won a majority government — with a minority of total votes. If you weren't with him, you just weren't worth counting.

That's not a strategy for building a national consensus. But the people who plot Harper's strategy must believe it's a way to stay in power. Otherwise, Harper wouldn't have said the things he's said.

What does that tell you about the qualities of a leader?