More from L. Ian MacDonald available More fromavailable here

Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau have traded places as the leaders representing change. The challenge for the NDP leader is to consolidate his position as the agent of change, while Trudeau must regain that role or be relegated to third place, where he currently finds himself in the polls.

Consider the reversal of fortune. At the beginning of October 2014, Trudeau and the Liberals stood on the cusp of majority territory, at 39 per cent in the EKOS poll for iPolitics, with the Conservatives out of the game at 25 per cent and the NDP trailing even further at 24 per cent.

By the year-end EKOS poll in December, the Liberals had fallen to 32 per cent, with the Conservatives recovering to 31 per cent, and the NDP slumping to 20 per cent.

In the latest EKOS sample in mid-July, the NDP, ahead for the last two months, have consolidated their lead at 33 per cent, with the Conservatives at 29 per cent, and the Liberals at 24 per cent, 15 points below where they were only nine months ago.

Of course, 15 points ago was before a cocky Trudeau glibly talked about whipping out the CF-18s; before the debate on the deployment of Canadian fighter planes and ground advisers to Iraq and then Syria, where the Liberals opposed the mission but supported the troops; before the debate on the security legislation, Bill-51, which the Liberals criticized for invading civil liberties and privacy, only to vote for it.

And before the Conservative attack ad on Trudeau as “not ready.” Once again, the Conservatives are defining their Liberal opponent as they did with Michael Ignatieff in 2011 (“just visiting”) and Stéphane Dion in 2008 (“not a leader.”) Another poll by Leger Marketing last week was pretty much aligned with EKOS, with the NDP and Conservatives tied at 32 per cent, and the Liberals back at 25 per cent.

Trudeau can’t get to 24 Sussex from the mid-20s, he can’t even get to Stornoway from there.

For Mulcair, it points to the hazards of saying one thing in French that can be construed quite differently in English. And not just on the Constitution, but equally on energy and pipelines. For Mulcair, it points to the hazards of saying one thing in French that can be construed quite differently in English. And not just on the Constitution, but equally on energy and pipelines.

In the last three months, the Liberals have announced major differentiating elements of their platform, from child care benefits to a middle-class tax cut, to democratic reform and governance. It all makes for a very healthy policy debate among the three parties, but none of it is easily translated into soundbites.

Welcoming floor-crosser Eve Adams from the Conservatives into the Liberal fold as he did in February, with a news conference rather than a press release, was a serious error in judgment by Trudeau and his advisers. It was an indelible moment in crass opportunism.

Meanwhile, Mulcair has been unambiguously opposed to the mission against ISIS and C-51, both issues that Trudeau badly misjudged. Mulcair has also put out his own differentiating policy planks on $15-a-day child care and a $15-per-hour federal minimum wage.

While Trudeau frittered away his lead since last fall, Mulcair understood that the NDP was mired and going nowhere, and he did something about it. He shook up his office, reached out to NDP strategists he had previously ignored, and brought in key advisers from Jack Layton’s 2011 campaign, notably Anne McGrath and Brad Lavigne. Mulcair has also raised his own retail game, sidelining Angry Tom and raising his profile with Canadians. Out there on the barbecue circuit, Happy Tom is making the summer rounds, even doing smiling photo ops with cows in support of supply management in dairy.

Of course, Mulcair also received a gift in Rachel Notley’s historic NDP victory in Alberta in May, which resulted in a five-point bump for a federal party that was already on the move. But in this game, you also have to be good to be lucky.

The NDP campaign has also made a tactical wager in upping the ante against the Liberals as the party representing time for a change. Their attack ad on Conservative ethics this month, ending with former MP Dean del Mastro leaving court in handcuffs and shackles, makes the point that they’re prepared to play down and dirty, no holds barred. Never mind that Mulcair has said he wouldn’t go down the road of personal attacks. With that online ad, the NDP is saying that it’s not only the party of change, but the party to throw the bums out.

This is a bid to win over the ABC vote—Anyone But Conservative, which is pretty close to 70 per cent of all Canadians.

This is why Trudeau and the Liberals have switched their attacks from Harper to Mulcair. Last Monday, as Mulcair did a photo op with local candidates in front of the Toronto skyline, the Liberals sent out area MP Adam Vaughan to essentially plant questions on his support of the NDP’s 2005 Sherbrooke Declaration, which upholds the position of all parties in the Quebec legislature since 1980 that a 50-per-cent-plus-1 ‘Yes’ vote in a referendum is enough to prompt the break up Canada.

After the close call of the 1995 referendum, when we came within 1.2 percentage points of losing the country, the Chrétien government referred the matter to the Supreme Court, which in 1998 found there must be a “a clear answer to a clear question,” resulting in the Clarity Act of 2000.

It was Mulcair who brought this up again in Quebec City over St.-Jean Baptiste, saying he was “proud” of the NDP’s position on 50-plus-1.

The Liberals immediately jumped on this in English Canada, pointing out it would take a two-thirds vote to amend the NDP’s own constitution, but only 50-plus-1 to break up the country. Welcome to Jesuit logic 101.

In Montreal last Tuesday, Trudeau jumped into the fray, saying, “I’m sorry but I don’t think anyone will ever accuse a Liberal named Trudeau of being afraid to go after sovereigntists. I’ve been very, very clear that Canadian unity is an issue that is important to always address.”

And in terms of jostling and jousting with Mulcair over change, he said, “I’m so excited for the campaign to start so that people can see that the Liberals are the real alternative to the Harper Conservatives across the country.”

The question of 50-plus-1 versus the Clarity Act is quite likely to come up in the first leaders’ debate in English next week.

For Mulcair, it points to the hazards of saying one thing in French that can be construed quite differently in English. And not just on the Constitution, but equally on energy and pipelines. There is one view against the Energy East project in Quebec, and another in favour of it in Saskatchewan and Alberta.

But Trudeau should also be careful in raking Mulcair over the coals on 50-plus-1. His own father played by those rules of the game in 1980, and his contribution was inspiring to the ‘No’ campaign. For Mulcair, who was in the trenches in both 1980 and 1995 fighting for the “No” side, it can’t be just an academic question. His love of country will need to shine through.

—

L. Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy, the bi-monthly magazine of Canadian politics and public policy. He is the author of five books. He served as chief speechwriter to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney from 1985-88, and later as head of the public affairs division of the Canadian Embassy in Washington from 1992-94. The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.