While it is certainly true that in politics, as in life, nothing can be taken as certain, I believe that, at this point, a Conservative Government is all-but-certain. At this point, I would rate a Conservative Majority Government as being more likely than not and set the odds of the Liberals managing to pull off even a minority government at about the same level as those of Duceppe moving into Stornoway. With that in mind, it is only prudent to examine the question of just what dangers lay ahead after a Tory win on January 23rd.

One obstacle, perhaps one which will be difficult to surmount, is the Senate. There are one-hundred Senators at the moment. Of those, sixty-seven are Liberals. There are five vacancies. Even with mandatory retirement, the Liberals are going to control the Senate for an extremely extended period of time.

Already, Senator Larry Campbell – a man whose talent for aggravating people is truly worthy of some sort of official recognition – has suggested that the Liberals will use their majority in the Senate to attempt to thwart certain Tory priorities. It strikes me as certain that the Liberal majority in the unelected Senate will be enough to stop any Conservative effort to overturn gay marriage. It also strikes me as being more than likely that they will use that power in an effort to curtail the power of a Tory government.

Another challenge will be the composition of the Tory Caucus. Even in the best-case scenario, it seems likely that there will be two major problems. First, there’s a good chance that, if we see a late swing which brings a strong majority, that we will have a large number of inexperienced and possibly unsuitable MP’s to deal with. Trying to control these MPs over a long period of time will very much be an exercise in herding cats.

Additionally, we face the reality of a media and establishment who are, present circumstances being an anomaly, generally hostile to conservatism and supportive of the left. Once the initial euphoria has passed, we can expect them to resume their previous position. At the outside, I give it six months before the media swaps positions.

Also (though we may get lucky and see Martin try to hold on) we face a probable scenario of a new Liberal leader who, given the general orientation of the media, will surely be venerated as Christ once was and hailed as the Lord and Savior of Canada.

Finally, there’s another factor to recall. Many of our MP”s and virtually all of our Cabinet members will be brand new at their jobs. They are going to make mistakes – and we’re not going to get any mercy.

As I’ve said to a number of Tories, it is not our aim simply to win the battle. We seek to win the war. The election is step one. This can’t be the end of “The Candidate” where, on Election Night, we turn to eachother and ask, “Now what?” We must be ready.

Given the dynamics of this situation, there is only one thing which we can do. We must maintain the assault. On taking office we must attack for sixty days and then we must attack for sixty more. We cannot halt. We cannot slow down. Only an all-out assault against the bastions of the enemy can carry the day.

Under normal conditions, politics is like a war of attrition. As in the Great War, grand and determined armies struggle against eachother for feet of blood-soaked ground. Every once and a while, the lines of one side or the other break and the other achieves a breakthrough. Sooner or later, the other side will throw in its reinforcements and the lines will stabilize – but they will hold in their new positions.

Once we have achieved our breakthrough, we cannot stop. There’s no time to worry about our flanks. We simply must drive forward, overrun the enemy’s trenches, and bayonet the survivors. We can show no mercy, no compassion, for the devilish foe.

Now, how do we translate this into real life?

It means, in terms of the Conservative legislative program, moving forward as rapidly as possible. It means having a strong small-c conservative budget ready to go and before the House of Commons before the first rains of spring. It means having harsh crime legislation ready to go when the House of Commons opens.

In doing this, we must remember two important principles of politics.

First, it is better to go too far than it is to go not far enough. If, early on, we go too far in terms of cutting government spending or increasing punishments, we can always ease off later. It will be much harder for us – absent an obvious crisis – to increase the measures later.

Second, if we’re going to get blamed for something, we might as well do it. No matter what we do, people are going to believe that our budget is throwing widows into the gutter and orphans into bonfires. And, while I wouldn’t advocate going quite that far, I will note that, if we’re going to make a 1% cut in a program, there’s little political reason not to make a 10% cut and that if we’re going to make a 10% cut, there’s not all that much reason not to abolish the program.

As for the matter of the Senate, a Liberal attempt to abuse the prerogatives of that unelected body would provoke nothing less than a full-blown Constitutional crisis. If the Liberal-controlled Senate seeks to use its undeserved powers to thwart the will of the people, then the Conservatives ought to open up the question of the Constitution and push an amendment to replace the present Senate with an elected Senate.

Of course, as that amendment would require the consent of the Senate, it is unlikely that an amendment of that sort would pass. That, alas, will require another option.

In the event of deadlock – hopeless deadlock with a Liberal Senate seeking to block the expressed will of the House of Commons and no way of overthrowing their power, there is a nuclear option which remains.

A Conservative Government ought, under such circumstances, attempt something audacious. It should put together a new Constitution and put it directly to the people in a referendum. This new Constitution would unseat all sitting Senators and replace the existing Senate with a directly-elected Upper Chamber. It could also include all sorts of other reforms (for example, enshrining property rights).

Some might object that such a suggestion is not within the strict letter of the law. Indeed, it is not. However, I would point out, that it is very similar to the actions taken in formulating the Constitution of the United States to replace the Articles of the Confederation. Governments and Constitutions are established with the consent of the people, not the dictates of unelected government bureaucrats.

Nothing in life can be taken as certain. But this is as close to a done deal as there is in this world.