Stefanson’s attack on Glover misses mark

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 01/10/2021 (1828 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

This is what happens when you throw a political punch that doesn’t connect.

According to a report by the CBC’s Bartley Kives, Progressive Conservative Party leadership hopeful Heather Stefanson has accused her opponent, Shelly Glover, of having “told members of the party caucus — most of whom support the Tuxedo MLA (Stefanson) in her bid to become Manitoba’s next premier on Oct. 30 — that the former Conservative MP (Glover) will ensure they are defeated at future nomination meetings or fire them from their roles.”

Kives quotes Stefanson as saying “What I’m very concerned about is Nov. 1. I think if she ends up being our premier, how does she get along with all the caucus colleagues that she’s told actually she’s going to run someone against them in their nominations, that she’s going to fire them?

“This is something that she has said and my colleagues are very concerned about it … I think she needs to address that.”

That’s a serious allegation by our former deputy premier, levelled against a former federal cabinet minister who was a police officer for many years before entering politics.

It’s serious, but it appears to be bogus.

Kives reports that “Stefanson could not say when Glover made these comments or to whom they were made.” He quotes her as saying “I think it was a statement that was made out there or something, though.”

In other words, Stefanson is accusing Glover of something without any facts to back it up.

Glover’s reaction to the accusation was no surprise: “That is an outrageous lie. That is not true. I would welcome her to come say that right here, right now.” That didn’t happen because Stefanson had already left the building.

What are we to make of this? What is really going on here?

It appears that Stefanson is struggling to come to grips with the possibility she might lose the leadership contest. Desperation may be starting to take hold.

From the beginning of her campaign, her trump card has been the many endorsements she has received from her cabinet and caucus colleagues. Now she is arguing that Glover won’t be able to lead a government made up of those same MLAs, who endorsed Stefanson before Glover entered the race.

The problem with that argument is there are growing rumours that a number of MLAs and ministers who endorsed Stefanson are having second thoughts, and are considering switching to Team Glover.

If defections start happening, it would be a fatal blow for the Stefanson campaign, just as party members are casting their ballots for leader. Any momentum she has would evaporate, and the prospect of impending defeat would begin to crystallize.

Viewed from that perspective, the Stefanson strategy is transparent. Her baseless allegations weren’t really an attack on Glover. The target was Tory MLAs who may be getting cold feet, and may be thinking of jumping ship to Glover — that their jobs will be at risk if Glover wins.

So much for Stefanson’s silly strategy. Let’s look at this issue from another perspective.

What if Glover actually made those comments? Would they really be something she should apologize for?

I don’t think so. Every premier has the right to choose the cabinet she wants. No MLA is entitled to a seat at the cabinet table.

As regards the possibility of contested nominations, being an MLA is not a lifetime job. Rather, it is something an MLA must re-apply for every election. That starts with seeking the nomination of party members in the MLA’s riding.

If a majority of the members of a riding association believe their incumbent MLA isn’t doing a good job, or that somebody else would be a better candidate, those members should not be prevented from nominating the candidate of their choice. That’s grassroots democracy in action.

At bottom, Glover comes out of this spat as the winner. She was falsely accused and stood up for herself. That shows strength, confidence and conviction.

And even if she had said those words, she would simply be defending democracy at the local level. That too is a win.