Last week's bone jarring drop in global equities markets has raised the stakes in Canadian politics.
Since May, minorities-and-elections fatigue meant most Canadians were happy to ignore national politics, but as we head into the fall, interest will rise once again, and the economy is bound to be the focus.
The debt problems of Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Ireland have been a painful experience for millions around the world. Add the trauma threatened by the combination of America's massive debt, weakening confidence and careening, increasingly unpredictable political system, and the threat to relatively healthy economies like Canada is obvious. What course we should take to protect ourselves is an important choice, the consequences of which may have a profound effect on the fortunes of the Conservatives and their opponents.
The Prime Minister will have a free hand in charting the course that he prefers. But the opposition leaders will now have not only a stage, but a bigger audience too: the arguments they make, the alternatives they propose, the manner in which they hold the government to account will be noted by more people. If economic conditions deteriorate, their ideas will attract more interest, inevitably.
For months, Mr. Harper has been saying that the world economy is still fragile and deficit levels in Canada must come down. The events of recent weeks will reinforce confidence in his leadership, as voters will find it hard to disagree with either of those propositions. But, ultimately, it will be the performance of the economy, not the prescience of his apprehensions that will most affect his support.
This means that what opposition parties say now will have greater consequences for their parties too. For the Liberals, Bob Rae stepped into the debate on Friday with a well-timed message that did not rail against reducing the deficit, but made acase for investing in infrastructure and avoiding job cuts. His reasoning will strike many centrist voters as worth a listen: Canada's fiscal situation should be improved but is not a crisis. Meaning we can and should avoid radical cuts that would put our economy at risk, especially when the US economy is so fragile. In effect, Mr. Rae adopted the position that Mr. Harper shifted to, in the wake of the 2008 election. As the world economy roiled, Mr. Harper was coming off as too laissez-faire, and was shedding support as a result. As, over time, he moved to a "spend what it takes to avoid a bigger problem" posture, his political fortunes only improved.
The NDP faces a quandary that goes well beyond the distressing absence of its most popular figure, Jack Layton. Or his temporary replacement by Nycole Turmel, whose ambivalence towards federalism or separatism (whichever it is, or both) has more or less ended her future in Canadian politics before it really began. Mr. Rae has essentially laid out the position that would logically appeal to moderate NDP voters. And the more radical left? Ideas that might appeal to them, at this moment, would be repellant to most other voters, and create great brand risk for the NDP.
In short, economic conditions and confidence over the coming weeks will mean the stakes for all parties are going up. Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty are seasoned and politically astute: they are unlikely to make grave errors. But stiff economic headwinds, if they occur, always create some desire for change. The Liberals, who need to be understood once again as a party with strong economic credentials, the opportunity to create new interest is unmistakable. For the NDP, the speedy return to health of Jack Layton, a hope shared by a great many people, will not change the fact that the dilemma of how best to position that party, (in a world where China excoriates the U.S. for engorged entitlement programs and a lack of money-sense), may be the toughest assignment of all.
Bruce Anderson