The Globe and Mail

Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:46 AM EST

Mulcair livens up NDP race with challenge to party faithful

The NDP leadership race is entering its last laps and the stakes are rising. Not just because the time for candidates to break away from the pack and develop a lead is getting shorter.

No, an arguably bigger threat for New Democrats is the pretty comprehensive evidence that they have been fading from public view while the Liberal Party brand and its steward Bob Rae are reconnecting with larger numbers of mainstream, centrist voters – especially in central Canada. The relevance of the NDP is not a given, despite its Official Opposition status.

Since the beginning of the leadership race, it has been remarkable for two things. First is the relative gentility of the NDP candidates towards one another. Hard to fault that, but also makes it harder for most people to pay attention if they don’t see some fire, conviction, a test of wills and personalities. It doesn’t have to be UFC, but boxing with headgear, maybe?

But the other thing that has been striking about the race is how (ironically) it resembles the Republican nomination race in the United States: It’s relentlessly about the base. Try to tune in, and if you’re not a party member, chances are you’ll tune out quickly. It's reminiscent of those soap operas that ran on daytime TV for decades: For those who know the characters and enjoy plotlines that keep repeating themselves, it’s must-see TV. For everyone else, not so much.

Of course, it’s highly logical that leadership candidates are trying to win the hearts of card-carrying members. But just like the Republican candidates down south, it’s easy to get the impression a candidate who tries to win voters outside the tent might be frowned upon by the rank and file, and find themselves living under a cloud of suspicion.

For Mitt Romney this week to declare his bona fides as a “severely conservative” politician (at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington) was inevitable, but also sort of ridiculous. The Republicans will face a talented opponent with a possibly recovering economy in the fall: Would it be so bad to choose the fellow who seems appealing to people outside the party tent?

So back to the NDP race. Reading about Thomas Mulcair’s meeting with the Toronto Star editorial board, I couldn’t help but wonder if something different may be starting to happen here.

That Mulcair said edgy, brash things was not shocking. That the challenges he threw down were mostly aimed at the feet of NDP members was what caught my attention.

He talked about fatigue with ‘50s boiler plate language of social democracy and admitted to meeting party members who fear the implications of winning power, believing it would be the result of an apocalyptic soul-selling. He challenged the orthodoxy of styling the NDP as the champion of “ordinary people,” suggesting that good progressive ideas will be supported by more voters if they are not always freighted with class warfare branding.

On NAFTA, Mulcair dismissed the idea of scrapping the deal, said the oil sands shouldn’t be shut down, and that tax increases would only be considered as a last resort in a government he would run.

I’m not suggesting his positions would win broad acceptance; there are lots of aspects of them that would still give pause to centrist voters. But I do think his themes are challenging to NDP voters: He’s leaving little doubt that if they want to go the next step as a party and seriously try to win an election, that’s what he wants to do as well. Inferentially, he’s asking them to consider if the same can be said for his opponents.

No doubt, in speaking out this way, Mulcair is taking a gamble in terms of the internal dynamics of this leadership race. But to borrow a term from René Lévesque, it may well be a beau risque for him – and an interesting argument for his party to consider.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Monday, January 30, 2012 4:33 AM EST

Harper’s Davos speech puts Canada on the path to substantive politics

For much of Stephen Harper’s time in office, his critics have charged that almost every move he made was calculated to win short-term electoral advantage. To some, he looked like a man without a long-term plan, the exact opposite of what they had expected.

With his speech in Davos, PMSH 2.0 has emerged. His declaration that Canada needs to overhaul its pension approach is clearly not borne of a zeal to win more votes. No, this is one of those things that – in theory anyway– people say they want politicians to do. Take a tough issue, find a solution you believe in and press ahead, make your case. The PM is putting political capital on the line for ideas he believes in. He undoubtedly knows there is more political risk than reward in what he is doing.

The substance that Mr. Harper proposes will be debated at length as details emerge; my comments are only about political communications.

Mr. Harper's overarching message was that the developed world has been living high on the hog, is out of shape and needs to go to boot camp. And not just a two-week boot camp, more like a 20-year one. The assertion that we have become complacent and take prosperity for granted may have a ring of truth for many people. They might agree that we need to improve our economic fitness. But they may be thinking about walking a bit more and eating a bit less – not about years of endurance and making do. There’s a reason why fitness infomercials spend so much time telling us that making progress will be easier than we think: it’s what makes us pick up the phone.

The Davos speech included a few passages that might make the average Canadian feel proud of what has been built in this country. But not many. There was a fair bit of “every silver lining has a dark cloud,” and Mr. Harper draws more on the fear of going over a cliff than the promise of reaching new heights. It’s often true that unless people are fearful of the consequences of doing nothing, nothing can change. But getting people to accept tough change in a democracy often requires more than explaining why not doing so will be awful. Attention spans are getting shorter, especially for bad news. Finding the right blend of worry and optimism is tricky, but essential.

In the hands of his opponents, the PM's pitch can be recast to sound like: things are pretty good in Canada, but the rest of the world has made a bunch of mistakes, and now Canadians are not going to be able to retire as early or as comfortably as they had dreamed. To say this is politically vulnerable would be an understatement. The Maginot line had a better chance of holding back its enemies.

If they are going to win this debate (not just pass a law sometime during this term), the Conservatives will likely need to paint a brighter picture of the future. Canadians may need to see the “after” shot: what our life looks like when boot camp is over. The Davos speech more or less described success as survival.

Finally, it’s risky to talk about changing pension entitlements without talking about protection and care for the most vulnerable. Many Canadians have come to expect they will be on their own when it comes to planning for their retirement. But the instinct to want to protect our poorer older citizens remains very powerful in Canada. It’s easy to imagine centre and left voters coalescing around an alternative approach that is almost as fiscally cautious, but imbued with the desire to ensure our older citizens live in dignity.

Many will take issue with lots of the ideas in Mr. Harper’s speech in Davos. But after years of wishing that Canadian politics would be about important issues, even those who disagree with him should welcome the fact that he is laying out a substantive path, with a focus on the long term, not next month’s poll. And that we are launched into a debate that will challenge our political leaders to make their best case, on subjects that matter.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Monday, January 23, 2012 4:35 PM EST

Canada finds its way into U.S. presidential election campaign

Canada’s leaders have often wished our country was better known and more topical in the American political scene. For those grappling with issues like softwood lumber, border regulations or other trade irritants, the job of Canada’s diplomats has always been made more difficult by the fact that few Americans know the basics about this unprecedented two-way economic relationship.

On Saturday night, Canada found itself virtually at centre stage in the bruising U.S. presidential election campaign.

The profile of the Keystone XL pipeline has been rising for months now, but when Newt Gingrich took the stage after winning the South Carolina Republican primary, he made it clear that if he is the nominee, America’s energy relationship with Canada will be a regular theme of his campaign to defeat Barack Obama.

Mr. Gingrich’s comments were remarkable in several respects. He spoke with ease and blunt efficiency. He is clearly starting to hit a stride, while others are dropping out, and front-runner Mitt Romney has sprung a leak. His message may well resonate beyond the Republican base, as he is drawing on the deep frustrations that many Americans have about the health of their economy, America’s uncertain place in the world, and the sense that Washington D.C. is a dysfunctional mess.

He hammered Mr. Obama’s Keystone decision, saying a Gingrich administration would welcome the pipeline, and the energy security and jobs for Americans that would result, while Mr. Obama, in the thrall of “extremist left-wing friends in San Francisco,” was forcing a strategic marriage between Canada and China. He said U.S. energy policy should ensure that “no American President bows to a Saudi king.”

Whether or not you agree with the arguments that Mr. Gingrich was making, like or dislike his politics, or think he would be a good president, he was landing very hard rhetorical punches to the President’s solar plexus. The sort that Mr. Obama felled John McCain with only a few years ago.

Mr. Gingrich is a candidate that knows how to own a microphone and win a crowd. But he is also a candidate with flaws and a tendency to self-wound. His new momentum could easily evaporate, but for the moment it stems from three things. He’s hung in, after the beating his campaign took in the early days, including from his own campaign staff as they resigned en masse. He’s fearless and thus a totally unpredictable debater: Viewers watch him and know that he will be fresh and raw, not careful and scripted. Finally, Mitt Romney’s awkward revelation about his income and taxes is the latest in a series of reasons Republicans are finding to shy away from the former governor.

The last piece to fall into place for Mr. Gingrich came courtesy of CNN’s normally solid John King. Mr. King tossed Mr. Gingrich a hanging curve in last week’s debate, opening the evening by asking the former speaker whether he wanted to answer an allegation by his ex-wife to the effect that Mr. Gingrich had asked her to go along with the idea of an open marriage. To the standing cheers of the crowd, Mr. Gingrich owned the stage for several minutes as he repeatedly hammered Mr. King, and the media in general, for a fascination with rumour and trivia.

The Republican race is now entering a new and close to final stage. However it turns out, it’s a fair bet that Canada will be a more prominent topic than during any previous presidential campaign. And if Mr. Gingrich has his way, America’s position on Canadian oil will be one of the defining elements of the battle between Republicans and Democrats.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Sunday, January 15, 2012 10:39 AM EST

Can Liberals find sweet spot between prosperity and equality?

Those whose job it is to figure out how the Liberal Party makes more space for itself between the NDP and the Conservatives will be tempted to chart a complex array of policy differences.

Such an exercise, while it might be useful for policy development, probably won’t have a lot to do with the way millions of voters make their choice in the next election. Issues such as environment, trade, health care, defence, democracy and crime are all fodder for a good debate, but chances are none of them will be the most important ballot question.

Hazardous as it is to guess at what may be the key point of tension this far in advance of the next election, it’s not unreasonable to imagine it will come down to interplay between two concepts: prosperity and equality.

For the Liberals, at 35 seats, looking to stage a major comeback, this is a gut check issue. When they have been most successful, they were known as a party with sound, centrist economic management policies, combined with abiding concern for the needs of the less privileged. This was and remains a winning formula.

When they lost, it was often because their economic policies seemed too interventionist, and their program as a whole too expensive. To become competitive again the Liberals need to win votes lost to the right, and even more votes lost to the left.

The natural temptation of some Liberals might be to concentrate primarily on winning the votes lost to the left, by focusing on social justice or equality more than economic growth. The recent political debate about Occupy presumes that a choice must be made between a preoccupation with prosperity and a focus on equality. Implicit is the notion that those who talk of prosperity must lack compassion for those who are struggling. But voters know this is a false choice. And it's also bad political strategy.

Those who are most aggrieved about poverty and equality will be the least accessible voters on the left for the Liberal Party. A more rational strategy would carve out new ideas for advancing prosperity and improving equality. More job opportunities for all, and better income growth for those who have been struggling.

Canadians are worried about the problem of equality and a growing income gap. But they don’t believe these problems have been willfully caused by the wealthy, or by Canadian corporate greed on steroids. And so they are looking for policy ideas that step outside of the “zero sum game”, 1 per cent versus 99 per cent framework.

In that most Canadian of ways, mainstream voters want a focus on strengthening the economy for everyone, not limiting the gains at the top to narrow the gap with the bottom. This is the sweet spot available for the Liberals.

In what I've heard so far, the Liberals in this convention come off as fairly pragmatic and centrist, less tempted by the charms of ideology. They seem as passionate as they have traditionally been about the challenges facing those of lesser means, but drawn to ideas that solve problems rather than drive wedges between classes of people, or between business and workers.

To the left of the Conservatives and the right of the NDP, there is room for new thinking about how to increase prosperity and improve equality. The other parties seem more drawn to the zero-sum-game framework.

Whether the Liberals want to make this space their own is part of the existential question just below the surface of this policy convention. And the path they choose may well determine how successful they are in the next election.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Friday, January 13, 2012 5:42 PM EST

Trudeau-era hubris beaten out of them, Liberals at last look ready to rebuild

In 1978, at the suggestion of my older brother Rick (this will amuse those who know Rick) I went to my very first political convention. It was a Liberal Party of Canada convention in Ottawa, and roughly 3,500 people showed up for a cold weekend in February.

The Liberals back then were the masters of the political universe, the most formidable political machine in the country. They were led by the enigmatic Pierre Trudeau, and leading figures like Allan MacEachen, Marc Lalonde, Keith Davey and Jim Coutts were like rock stars in the world of Canada’s national affairs.

For me, that weekend was fascinating enough to cement a life-long interest in Canadian politics. As I recall the Liberal Party I met that weekend I remember thinking that the conventioneers had a profound pride. And maybe just a bit too much fascination with themselves and satisfaction with their accomplishments. Even so, it was a club lots of people wanted to join. It had the scent and the swagger of a winner.

Success on the scale the Liberal Party enjoyed back then always looks attractive, from a distance. And of course it is better than failure. But it doesn’t build muscle, it adds fat. It doesn’t sharpen skills, it dulls instincts. If hunger motivates, the Liberals during that period were overfed, and lazy. And it caught up to them. About a year later, voters elected Joe Clark’s Progressive Conservatives and turfed the Liberals.

Since that time, if Liberals are honest with themselves, they would acknowledge their victories have been a bit asterisked. Some might argue that a win is a win is a win, but in truth they are not all equal. The last Trudeau win in 1980 was fluky: The party was out of gas, but scraped together a win on the back of the Clark-Crosbie proposal to hike the price of gas.

The Chrétien wins owed a great deal to the arrival of the Reform and Bloc Québécois parties. Paul Martin won a minority, hobbled by the sponsorship scandal, and struggling with a party that once again was inward looking to a fault, had not done the hard work to modernize its membership or fundraising apparatus, and was weak on the ground.

Some Liberals are tempted to ascribe the near total collapse of their party under Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff to unscrupulous bare-knuckle politics of their Conservative opponents. Whatever the merits of that point, it won’t change anything for them.

If Liberals are going to come back, they must first accept that they might not.

So what kind of attitude imbues these convention halls? And how does it compare to the hubris I remember more than 30 years ago? (Ouch, that line startled me.) Cockiness is down, talk of readiness is up. Accepting the need for hard work isn’t the same as actually doing the work, but it’s a necessary precondition.

I’ve yet to run into any Liberal here this weekend who thinks their party is one lucky bounce away from a big win. On the contrary, pretty much everyone I’ve talked with is chatting about opening up the membership rolls, letting more people in, opening up their policy process on the Internet, and so on.

It’s snowy, slushy, Ottawa in January, and there are more than 3,000 people here again. They are serious but upbeat. They don’t seem much inclined to talk about what was, and are much more passionate about what’s next. To my eyes, they’re a party that may be down but should hardly be counted out.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:24 AM EST

Mild-mannered NDP leadership race so far avoids tough realities

The NDP leadership campaign has clicked into second gear, and now there’s enough grist to give it a (hopefully) thoughtful review. A total of nine candidates are seeking the keys to Stornoway. Watching them in debate mode offers Canadians who aren’t members of the NDP a chance to hear their aspirations for the country. What are they likely to have observed to this point? Here’s my take:

» All the candidates come off as well intentioned. If you are cynical about politicians, spending a few hours listening to these people will erase a bit of that cynicism, even if you might not agree with their views.

» Those watching the debates and looking for a knockout punch can stop now. No knockouts are likely, because no punches are thrown. The candidates are determined that their party must look like it is made up of people who respect each other, in contrast with the UFC-style leadership fights of the Liberals.

» The discussion of policy issues has been articulate, but the TV version of it is inevitably narrow and a half-inch deep. This is partly a function of nine contenders trying to share precious TV seconds, of course, and can be offset by the policy papers the candidates are putting out. But for those voters unwilling to make that commitment of time and effort, few compelling ideas seem to be emerging. Not yet, anyway.

Is this leadership campaign going well for the NDP, in terms of consolidating and broadening its base? I expected it would, but now I’m less sure. Here’s a few reasons why I feel that way:

» The economy is hugely topical, but Canadians see the economy as a more complex, more global matter than ever before. Thoughtful mainstream voters are finding themselves following decisions being made not only in Ottawa, but also in Rome, London, Paris, Athens, Berlin, Dublin, Brussels, and Washington. Policy in Beijing matters too. The NDP candidates haven’t been talking much about these global crosswinds, but voters will ultimately want a government led by someone who looks ready to play on that stage.

» Canada’s economy has held up relatively well in a challenging word, in no small part because of our ability to sell our products abroad. There’s not much talk among the candidates about expanding trade, a fair bit of dismay about past trade agreements, and plenty of talk about applying the brakes to some of our exports. These arguments may strike a chord with NDP stalwarts, but others might wonder if there isn’t more nostalgia and ideology than sound planning for tomorrow.

» Canada is struggling with the largest deficit in the country’s history. Ontario has a worrisome imbalance. Everyone knows big cuts in government spending are coming. Simultaneously, pressures to find the money we will need to keep health care available and education affordable are growing more intense. These choices are topical, current and if ever there was a moment when the NDP must demonstrate that it has a handle on the math, not just the compassion, it is now. So far, the candidates have talked relatively little about fiscal issues, and when they have, the focus has largely been on increasing taxes.

As a group the leadership discussion seems often to be about greening the economy and making it fairer more than about growing it. Good ideas, of course. But recession-nervous voters want to know that ideas for greening the economy are pragmatic and achievable, not just a wish list. That case hasn’t been made yet. On the equity question, a sizeable group of Canadians feel marginalized – but nowhere near 99 per cent of the population. It’s actually closer to the size of the core vote of the NDP. Most people want a focus on more growth and more equity. They believe “all boats can rise” rather than see the economy as a zero sum game, where for one person to do better another must do worse.

Of course, this campaign is about winning the largest share of support among the rank and file of the New Democratic Party. But maybe it shouldn’t have to be so inconvenient that everyone else is able to look on. So far, unless you are someone who has always been inclined to vote for it, the party might look as though your problems may not be their priority. For better or for worse, this reflects a central truth about the NDP: Many New Democrats like the idea of running a government but hate that they may have to compromise on some ideology to do so. The NDP worries as much about the risks of achieving power as the opportunities it would present.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Friday, December 16, 2011 4:34 PM EST

Do Conservatives now think they have carte blanche on dirty tricks?

There’s disappointment, and understandably so, that House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer didn’t find that Liberal MP Irwin Cotler’s privilege as an MP was abused by the Conservative phone skullduggery carried out in his riding.

No doubt there are legitimate precedents Mr. Scheer was able to draw on to come to the conclusion he did. But it is also fair to wonder, since he called the behaviour in question “reprehensible,” if another finding wasn’t also within his reach.

However, the fact the Speaker has decided he can’t sanction the Conservatives in this matter, doesn’t mean the whole episode has to fade to black. Nor should it. People of whatever political stripe who care about reasonable conduct in Canada’s political life might want to press on with a couple of outstanding questions.

1. Does the leadership of the Conservative Party interpret the ruling as carte blanche to do more of this kind of “wet-work”? If this tactic were carried out on a broader scale, would anyone really think it is nothing more than sporting politics? (As an aside, do we really think the Speaker would have arrived at the same decision if the tactic was used against 50 or 100 opposition MPs?)

2. Do other leading Conservatives share the views of Government House Leader Peter Van Loan, who said that the calls made into Mr. Cotler’s riding were vital free speech and a sign of good health in our democracy? If Mr. Van Loan truly is speaking for cabinet… well, that would be kind of frightening. If not, he should seek an opportunity to step back from that argument and acknowledge that a line was crossed.

In the end, apart from Mr. Cotler (whose constituents might take careful note of this episode, including the “shadow MP” on the public payroll), those who may have the most at stake are rank and file Conservatives.

This tactic and the risible defence offered by Mr. Van Loan shames them. Over more than two decades, I’ve listened to thousands of people in focus groups. I doubt if I’ve run into more than a handful who think this kind of “kill or be killed” ethos is what they are looking for from their representatives in Ottawa. I know plenty of Conservatives, including many who enjoy bare-knuckle politics; I've yet to hear one of them echo Mr. Van Loan's defence in this matter.

Shining a light on, and calling out this behaviour is important, and it's great that a significant number of news organizations and journalists have devoted more time and ink to it. Despite the frenetic pace of the modern news cycle, this kind of politics deserves more than the equivalent of a two-minute minor, or else the clutching, grabbing and slashing will grow worse – and the interest of voters shrink even more.

The Speaker’s ruling notwithstanding, there are plenty of ways for voters who think this behaviour must stop, to get that message to Mr. van Loan and the Conservative leadership.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Saturday, December 3, 2011 2:52 PM EST

Van Loan’s defence of dirty tricks debases Tories and degrades democracy

At least once a year for the last 20 or more, as a pollster, I’ve been asked “Why are young people so detached from our political parties?” or “What can we do to reverse the decline in voting turnout, especially among young people?”

Last May's election reminded us this problem is not going away on its own. Some days it seems like a pretty complex challenge. And then there are moments of great clarity, as there was in Ottawa this past week.

For a while now, there’s been a dirty-trick rumour in circulation: that organized callers have been phoning Liberal MP Irwin Cotler’s constituents, leaving the false impression he is leaving politics and they would need a new MP soon.

Eventually, Government House Leader Peter Van Loan admitted that this was being done on an organized basis by the Conservatives. A sad, cynical enough moment in Canadian politics. Then he took cynicism to a new, jaw dropping level.

No mumbling the normal apologies about “overzealous workers, blah, blah, blah, won’t happen again, etc.” Instead, Canadians were told that this kind of grime should be considered vital free speech – and must be protected, not prevented, by our laws. Efforts to rein it in would have worse consequences than letting it continue. This was the sound of a politician who had left home without an ethical or moral compass that morning.

That this episode risks disappearing under the waves of the next 50 news stories is not surprising. But the story deserves more oxygen, more time in the spotlight.

This truly isn’t complicated. If our children tell lies about schoolmates, we punish them not shrug it off. When it happens on the Internet, we call it cyber bullying and bemoan how young people seem to have grown up without decent values. Conservative Christian groups presumably recognize this as something hard to square with the “Golden Rule.”

How exactly does this kind of behaviour, and its subsequent defence, fit within a party that wants to be known as the champion of law and order? I’m not suggesting the acts were illegal, only that it seemed the point of a law-and-order agenda was proclaiming a larger idea along the lines of “We conservatives get right and wrong.”

And this is wrong. Not clever, not amusing, not evidence of a more sophisticated political machine that works all the angles while others are asleep at the switch. Just wrong on every level.

That it might work is not an explanation of why it should be allowed – it's a great argument for why it shouldn’t. Mr. Van Loan’s position is the same as saying one shouldn’t outlaw lying because the next thing you know, someone will be trying to outlaw truth-telling. It’s insulting, it’s beneath this government, and I'm sure it is an embarrassment to many good people in the Conservative Party.

When these things happen, as inevitably they do, how about we use a simple question or two to decide what to do about them. Would we let our children do this kind of thing, or tell them it’s wrong? Can we realistically expect idealistic young people to become part of political organizations that think this kind of behaviour is ethical?

Link to this post 0 Comments

Thursday, November 24, 2011 10:06 AM EST

A tale of two democracies: Harper steamrolls, Obama grinds gears

The word out of Washington is that after 10 weeks of intense efforts to agree on a plan to cut America’s deficit, the Democrats and Republicans are empty handed. Their deadline expired and now it’s off to celebrate Thanksgiving.

Just how miserable a failure this is can hardly be overstated. America’s debt has passed $15-trillion. Governments owe almost $50,000 for every man, woman, and child. Everyone knows the problem won't solve itself and is getting worse by the hour.

This latest, not greatest effort was conceived out of the sad impasse that marked Washington politics earlier this year, which of course led to the Standard & Poor’s decision to cut the U.S. credit rating.

If American voters are presented with another failure, at least they won’t be surprised. Public confidence in Congress is running at about 10 per cent. Only 13 per cent expected the so-called “super committee” to find a deal. Super indeed. President Barack Obama is hardly immune to the public's ire. His approval rating is down 30 points since he won office and he finds himself deep in Jimmy Carter territory. He's disappointed the left, enraged the right (okay, maybe not such a hard thing to do) and bewildered the centre.

From a Canadian perspective, one of the more striking things about this fiscal debate in U.S. politics is how it contrasts with the recent debate about the use of closure by the Harper government.

In Washington, no amount of time seems to be enough to put in place an economic plan because both parties can’t agree or won’t agree – but fundamentally need to agree for anything to get done. American politics has become a system of lots of cheques, but few balances.

Here in Canada, the Conservatives bridle at the amount of time it takes them to get their economic legislation passed. But there is no doubt it will be passed.

And that’s not just because the Conservatives have a majority now. Even before the election result, there was more huffing and puffing than actually blowing the House down when it came to opposition resistance to Stephen Harper’s economic plans. Compared to the dug-in, daggers-drawn phenomenon that is modern day Washington, here in Ottawa there really wasn’t much daylight between the parties on the size of the stimulus program or the resulting fiscal issues.

If there is any excuse available for the failure of the U.S. political parties, it lies in the fact that public opinion is pretty rigid and polarized. Most voters want the debt and deficits addressed but aren’t really prepared to contemplate cuts to social security and medicare. Democratic voters want higher taxes on the rich and lower spending on defence. Republicans are against tax increases and want to protect defence spending. These incompatibilities were generally reflected in the inability of their elected representatives to find common ground.

In Canada, voters on the right and those on the left disagree to be sure – but except for the hardest of hardcore partisans, the differences are more often questions of degree than direction. When Canada faced a fiscal crisis more than 15 years ago, there was pretty broad agreement around the kind of policies the country needed to embrace.

For all of our sakes, and despite the flaws in our democracy, it’s hard not wish that more of our Canadian-style pragmatism and belief in compromise would take root in Washington.

Link to this post 0 Comments

Wednesday, November 9, 2011 9:32 AM EST

How long can Flaherty keep changing policy on the fly?

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is wrestling with a sluggish domestic economy while riding a Six Flags-worthy roller coaster of a global economy. It doesn't look like much fun.

The perpetual uncertainty about the rest of the world is unlike anything his recent predecessors have had to contend with. Some of them presided over better economic times, some worse – but the inability to predict next week, let alone next year, is a new part of the job.

If it feels like incumbent governments are enjoying a remarkably long leash from voters, despite the economic anxiety, that’s true. This is happening for two reasons.

First, most voters believe they would be facing worse times if they lived in the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Spain – indeed practically any G20 country save possibly Germany.

Second, while those on the right and those on the left have firm views, most other voters aren’t sure they want different policies when it comes to economic and fiscal management. Our Harris Decima polling through the summer showed that people remain unsure about whether stimulus or spending reductions were more necessary. In essence, these voters are telling governments to be pragmatic and tailor policy to events as they unfold.

On Tuesday, Mr. Flaherty couldn’t have been more determined to make the point that his policy mix is not lifted from a conservative tablet; it is being crafted, tailored and tweaked on a continuous basis, taking into account constantly changing circumstances. He pushed back his timeline for a balanced budget. He dialed back his proposed EI premium increases. In my estimation, he correctly surmised that both of these changes to his plan will cost him few, if any, votes.

But apart from today, the question remains, how well will this approach work going forward? There are two answers to that question. First, it will work alright if conditions don’t deteriorate dramatically. At a certain point, too much pain and people want change, period. The country is not at that point yet and that’s why so many incumbents have been returned this year.

But succeeding with this approach also requires the government to pass a different test. The government could miss its deficit target by a few billion dollars and pay no penalty with voters. Except if the perception develops that the government is extravagant, careless, or partisan in its use of taxpayer money.

The G8/G20 mess was an important first strike against the Harper government’s reputation in this area. Among other consequences, it damaged the credibility of the Treasury Board President at the moment when the government most needs to look as though it is making thoughtful, rational, careful decisions about where to spend and where to cut.

Stories about the use of government aircraft, about travel expenses for ministers, about potential cost overruns of new fighter jets, about the process to purchase ships for the navy – all of these take on a heightened importance now. Because as of the new year, most days, the government will either be facing criticism for being unwilling to fund a new idea or taking money away from an existing program that someone somewhere believes should be spared.

So if it’s “no” to most everyone else, the government will want to work harder than ever to show how it is living with restraint when it comes to spending in general, and in particular when it comes to items like those in the defence, justice and cultural fields, that appear to be pet projects.

Link to this post 0 Comments