The Sky is Falling: Ignatieff has long-term vision

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

The economic time-bomb that many in the CPC thought the LPC-NDP Coalition ought to hold instead of their PM, has been juggled by the coalition and the Liberals have thought twice and are sending it back. Why are progressives angry?

I believe a LPC-NDP Coalition budget would be better than what Harper has proposed, but would it have resulted in the ultimate defeat of Harper in an election? The coalition, while legal and constitutionally sound, was extremely unpopular with the majority of Canadians. It would have made more CPC voters than coalition enthusiasts in the next election.

I am pro-Coalition and I lament the fact that the Coalition never received the chance to govern, but that chance was back in December and the prorogation of parliament was the ultimate sign that the GG would not have given them the reigns should the government fall in the near future.

Now let us take a look at Ignatieff's strategy: The CPC will not achieve their objectives. And even if they do, there are too many other things that are missing in the budget for those left behind to be pissed off about. The ball was put into the Conservatives' corner when he successfully convinced the GG to prorogue parliament and he chose to ignore some crucial policies (amendments to EI, for example) that many Canadians are looking for.

Why didn't the Liberals make those amendments instead of the accountability amendments? Because you don't give your enemies your best ideas! You don't give them goals, that even are unachievable or difficult to achieve, that would be popular with Canadians. Imagine, that if the Liberals amended the budget to include all the things they thought ought to be included, what Harper could say in an election if those goals were not met: my hands were tied and those were unrealistic expectations; I made Liberal changes and they were still unhappy and now we have an election - I did my job; etc.

The Liberals are letting Harper fail on his own. They're allowing Harper to prove to Canadians that he really is incompetent and incapable of governing. They're allowing the Conservatives to be hypocrites and ruffle the feathers of their ideological base.

The NDP know that the fall of the CPC will probably swing more soft-conservative voters to Liberal candidates instead of their own. However, could Liberals gain on NDP ridings through this strategy? Perhaps, if not all NDP supporters were coalition-supporters. Which they aren't.

There is no Liberal-Conservative "virtual" coalition. It's a ridiculous piece of NDP propaganda that makes me wonder what the hell they were thinking when Jack signed that coalition agreement in the first place if the Liberals are so pro-Conservative. This "virtual" coalition is false and by becoming the new Accountability Hawks, the Liberals (and also the NDP if they would perhaps shift their electoral strategy and target CPC ridings instead of Liberal ones) have placed a pillow at the foot of the CPC to soften the impact when Harper falls on his own sword.

Ignatieff has long-term vision and he's not just thinking about this recession, or where we're going to be in June, or December. He's thinking of the political economy and what is best for the financial economy for the long-haul and he knows that the CPC cannot deliver on what is best for the country. But he realizes that they might be put back into the driver's seat should it fall and voters punish the opposition for forcing an election.

The GG killed the coalition back in December, every supporter of the coalition knows that deep down in their heart of hearts. It's time to dust ourselves off and think of what's the best way to end the ultimate threat to this country, Harper's leadership. Iggy is putting his foot forward and implementing the domino effect to do that.

Danny Williams: PM has a "puny & vindictive side"

Oh, Danny boy! No one can say it like you!

CPC supporters might hate the budget, but where are they to go?

I think the blogosphere understands the situation as they should: the budget will pass. Ignatieff's conditions will be accepted since I doubt Harper wants to go into an election right now. The Liberals will support it and the NDP/Bloc will use this as ammunition to target Liberal and Conservative incumbents and candidates in the next election. It looks like the political equilibrium has worked itself out in the end.

I, for one, am pro-coalition. If the government were to fall for legitimate reasons (beyond the issue of trust) within the next 6 months, we ought to have a coalition government and not another election. Beyond the 6 month span, I think we'd be fair game to go to the polls.

While Jack Layton certainly has some merit in declaring his mistrust of the Prime Minister and the CPC government due to a seemingly infinite number of about-faces on issues critical to the public. As Scott Brison said, this is a Dr. Jekyll budget where upon implementation we can only expect to encounter Mr. Hyde.

And that may be so, but, what gave the coalition legitimacy was their willingness to work with one another in cooperation. If Harper says he'll work within the limits of the Liberal's demands then he will have the confidence of the majority of the seats in the house. It is a clever strategy to push the PM to bite off more than he can chew and then punish him at the polls for it.

But I ask the question: where are CPC supporters going to go if we are faced with an election? They have no one to blame but their leader and cabinet and it will be interesting to see voter turnout levels in the areas where CPC support is at its highest. Will voters stay home in protest? Or will they swing and vote for the party that is giving the CPC the gears?

However, this post is being published before Michael Ignatieff makes his press release and should he not support the budget, I am confident that an Ignateiff/Harper election showdown would give the Liberals a minority government if the GG does not allow the LPC-NDP Coalition to govern.

***UPDATE***

Ignatieff has put the government on probation. An idea I'm sure Harper hates. Ignatieff and the LPC will support the budget with accountability amendments to it, the cornerstone of which is the promise that the government has 3 fiscal updates this year, at each point in time a confidence motion is held and the Opposition has the chance to renew their confidence or show their non-confidence and bring the government down.

During Ignatieff's announcement the media is hammering him on the issue that the LPC did not propose amendments to policies in the budget that they WANT to see or that they DISAGREE with. Ignatieff, like I suggested above, does not want to take the budget on himself. He wants to watch Harper sink under his own weight and then use that as ammunition during an election. By amending it to the point where it becomes a Liberal crafted budget and not a CPC written document takes the heat off of Harper.

Ignatieff is hammering the government on Harper's poor leadership, lack of accountability, and deception of Canadians on the economy. He won't let the idea of the Coalition government go, which is good, but he won't commit to bringing down the government without first holding Harper accountable to his promises in the budget.

The ball is now in Harper's court. If he rejects the Liberal accountability amendments the election will be on him.

"Evil Scientist" has it wrong

Commenting on Neil Waugh's "Harper must pony up for Alberta" printed in today's Edmonton SUN (yuck), Jason of Evil Scientist argues that regardless of whether Harper's budget delivers on Alberta's economic misfortunes, Albertans will continue to vote in droves for the CPC.

Waugh says:

Conservative support remains rock solid at 63%.But surely blind faith and undying loyalty have limits. Albertans are now being touched by the recession as much or more than auto workers in Southern Ontario.

If that fact isn't recognized in a substantive and immediate way in Harper's government-saving budget, then the 63% popularity he and his party now enjoy could evaporate like all those oil patch jobs. It's time to deliver, Stephen.

Jason counters:

Albertans don't know how to vote for anyone but the Conservatives. Stephen Harper could be waltzing down Centre Street here in Calgary pitchforking babies into the back of a pickup truck and there are two things that are certain: 1) The Calgary Herald, if it reported on it at all, would have it in a story under the headline "Babies had it coming" and 2) Albertans would rush to the polls to vote Conservative yet again. It just doesn't matter what the Tories say or do, Albertans will blindly vote for them. Election after election has borne this out.

Enter RCI:

Jason is wrong. Well, partially. It's not that conservatives (and their various ideological brethren) are immune from voter support in Alberta. The 2007 Alberta legislative by-elections prove the contrary. 2 vacated seats in January, one in Drumheller and former Premier Ralph Klein's seat in Calgary Elbow.

Calgary Elbow, a long-time seat for the former premier and the Progressive Conservative party, was lost to Liberal candidate Craig Cheffins by over 800 votes. Why? Not because PC voters decided to support a Liberal candidate (in the wake of growing incompentancy by the new premier, Ed Stelmach) but rather they stayed home. They didn't vote.

This is my prediction for Conservative Alberta, should Harper neglect his constituents and party base. They won't swing votes. They won't go elsehwere. They'll go nowhere. They'll stay at home on election day and BBQ up some meat.

I don't see Michael Igantieff bringing sexy back to federal Liberal candidates in Calgary or Edmonton, let alone rural Alberta. Jack doesn't have it and the Greens won't even be heard until they gain a seat in Parliament and change their leadership (which comes first?).

Like I said after the 2008 Alberta General Election, where Ed Stelmach and the Progressive Conservatives gained 9 seats, Albertans are not stupid people. They're not cattle who will blindly and mindlessly vote for the status quo. It may seem that way, to the outsider, but on the inside the politics of apathy are far greater than staunch support for the CPC. Until the Liberals, NDP, or GPC convince Alberta (and Saskatchewan, rural Manitoba, and the BC Interior - by the way) that there are better alternatives that are not East-centric, will Albertans cautiously lend them their votes.

What Albertans are ignorant to is the fact that the party that they think is doing so well is playing the same kind of East-centric politics that they hate about everyone else. It'll just take some time to convince them of that reality. And Waugh is one of the first to wake up to it. So embrace Waugh's message Jason, let him and the Edmonton SUN stir up shit. Let them convince Albertans that it is okay to vote for someone else (let alone warrented). Let him give it a try cause Lord knows you or I are not going to be the ones they'll listen to.

5 million more questions

Elections Canada is asking a judge to unseal up to a staggering five million pages of Conservative party documents tied to allegations the party broke federal election laws with a controversial advertising campaign in the 2006 election.

The demand is the first major development in the case since investigators raided Conservative party headquarters last year.

The search followed a year-long inquiry into $1.3-million worth of Conservative advertising the electoral agency says may have broken federal election law.

The Conservatives have said they broke no laws and are fighting Elections Canada in a separate court action.

Look down. WAAAY down on the CTV webpage and you'll find this article.

It's a tale of alleged corruption, involving our democratic system and a political party fighting for their right to secrecy. It's an ironic investigation. One which Elections Canada is getting the bare minimum of cooperation from the Conservative party who claim that they did nothing wrong in their 2006 election campaign which focused on the Liberals involvement in the Sponsorship Scandal. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

David Marler, former CPC candidate for Brome-Missisquoi during the '06 campaign, tells his side in, "Sixty-Six Said Yes." Marler could have been candidate number 67 who bought into the In-and-Out scheme.

This investigation is defining for Harper's legacy within the contemporary Canadian conservative movement. If the press does not bury this story and if there are significant breakthroughs in the case that leads to criminal charges of party members, expect a dramatic shift in conservative politics in Canada.

Should I be surprised?

My jaw literally dropped: Harper will run a $64 billion deficit over the next 2 years.

It's stunning how this got out of control. It's stunning how the Harperites could have stuck their head in the sand for so long.

What was the rationale the electorate employed when deciding to vote for a party that purposefully spent us down to the black? I hope those idiots enjoyed their double-doubles.

Tody on RCI: An open letter to Canada from Jared Milne

When I saw Jared's request to publish his open letter to the country in my email inbox, I was happy to oblige. The progressive Coalition government-in-waiting has been touted as an "unholy alliance" by some, while supporters view it as the only group willing to actually work for Canada. Jared presents both sides, dissects the future, and asks presents a mandate of cooperation that all politicians and politicos ought to respect. Thanks for the post Jared.

*****

An open letter to my fellow Canadians:

This letter is not meant to criticize or condemn any single political party or political movement. It is meant to urge Canadians to think about the opposing point of view in the current parliamentary crisis, to build understanding by summarizing the arguments both in favour of and against the coalition government. At the present time, we as Canadians have been set against one another, when we must come together from all regions, all languages and all races to resolve the terrible problems that confront us. I am equally dismayed and disappointed by all our current federal political leaders and the missteps they have all made, which have all deepened a crisis and harmed our national unity, putting their personal pride and petty goals before the national interest.

Consider first what provoked this political crisis-Stephen Harper’s proposal to end public subsidies to political parties based on their electoral performance in his recent economic update. How can Harper justify an action that the opposition parties were sure to oppose, when the election results made it quite clear that Canadians wanted the parties to all cooperate with one another? Was he simply short-sighted, or deliberately trying to goad his opponents? Either response is extremely irresponsible, particularly when the $30 million that would be “saved” from such a move is a tiny fraction of the overall federal budget. Also, in comparing the actual vote counts for the 2006 and 2008 federal elections, Harper actually lost 168,737 fewer votes-hardly a ringing endorsement and a clear signal that Canadians wanted all the parties to cooperate, not play partisan games with one another.

The move is also suspicious by itself. If Harper is opposed to taxpayer subsidies for political parties, then why did he seek to abolish only one type of subsidy, which just happens to be the one his opposition is most reliant on? Why doesn’t Harper eliminate the reimbursement of electoral expenses, the tax subsidies given for political donations, or other forms of subsidy that all, in one way or another, come out of taxpayers’ pockets? It should be remembered, after all, that we have had public subsidies in one form or another in Canada since 1974, and that Harper’s fellow conservative John McCain had no problem accepting such subsidies in the American presidential election, subsidies that were essential to ensure a fair shake on both sides of the contest.

Some may argue that they do not want to see their tax dollars going to support political parties they oppose, but this argument cuts both ways. Many progressives do not like seeing their tax dollars going to support such things as the war in Afghanistan, our military buildup, tax incentives for corporations, the prison system, and other causes that right-wing conservatives are more inclined to support, and yet their tax money goes to support these institutions and causes anyway. Similarly, many single mothers, working poor, and others who would be more inclined to support the NDP’s left-wing policies, cannot afford to make the same kinds of regular donations that wealthier businesspeople, who might benefit more from the Conservatives’ pro-business policies, can make to their parties of choice.

Finally, it should be remembered that in 2004, after the exposure of Adscam, Stephen Harper wrote a letter to the Governor General, co-signed by Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, advising the Governor General of her “constitutional options” and informing her of the consultations being made by the opposition parties. Harper was, in effect, proposing the exact same thing with the Bloc and the NDP that the Liberals are proposing now. Would Conservative supporters be as angry about a coalition government if their party had been the one to head it?

Some may see these arguments as sufficient reason for a coalition government. However, the coalition government as proposed by the Liberals under Stéphane Dion brings very serious problems of its own, not the least of which are the national unity ramifications. How can Dion, whose criticisms of the sovereignist movement were what brought him into federal politics, justify working with the Bloc Québécois now? It creates an extremely negative perception in the rest of the country, particularly among those who may not realize that not all Bloc supporters are sovereignists. Any coalition with a political party whose stated goal is the separation of one of Canada’s provinces will provoke a negative reaction in the rest of the country by itself…and who is to say what demands the Bloc will make in exchange for its support? Don’t forget, too, that Dion claimed during the election he would never form a coalition, and that Layton attacked him for not knowing how to handle the economy.

Arguably even worse for Canadian unity is the backlash this has already provoked in Western Canada. While not everyone in Alberta or the West in general supports Harper, the Conservative party has its strongest base of support in this part of the country, and is seen by many as the West finally having a strong voice in government after years of alienation. The coalition is seen by these Westerners as an illegitimate way of taking power away from the rightfully elected government, and as a slap in the face to their part of the country. While it was never intended this way, Albertans in particular would see this as an attempt to shut them out of the democratic process after overwhelmingly supporting the current prime minister. All this has done is refuel Western alienation and provoke a backlash against other parts of the country, and against the federal Liberal and NDP parties in general.

The question has been raised too about the constitutional workings of government, and it’s been argued that the coalition is in fact perfectly legal and in keeping with parliamentary tradition. Indeed it is, but another part of our parliamentary tradition is the idea of constitutional convention-that set of unwritten rules and expectations that dictate how political actors use their powers in practice. It is why the federal government no longer uses its powers to reserve or disallow provincial legislation, why the federal government can set national standards for social policy with legislation such as the Canada Health Act, and why the Trudeau government was forced to negotiate with the provinces in the constitutional patriation of the early 1980s.

It appears to me that the modern convention that has arisen is, that if a government loses the confidence of the House, an election must be called immediately. This is what happened after the Paul Martin minority collapsed in 2005, when Harper felt that he could win the resulting election. Now, it seems, whichever party receives the most seats in the House of Commons is automatically declared the winner, and called on to form a government. It is true that more than 62% of the population voted against Harper, but all of the other party leaders received even less support than he did. Going to a coalition was quite unnecessary, given that the opposition forced Harper to back off on the funding issue. What the opposition parties should be doing is working with the Conservative government, the way the people wanted them to! Both sides should remember that, in order to avoid the collapse of the Harper government and avoid an election that Canadians absolutely do not want, they must cooperate and compromise, which what they were elected to do in the first place.

With no party receiving a clear mandate of support from the voters, and with nearly 40% of the population staying home on election day, to me it seems clear what Canadians want, for their politicians to not play partisan games and cooperate with one another in dealing with our economic, environmental, and social issues. Harper does not have all the answers in dealing with the economy, nor do Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe or May. Their infighting does nothing to rebuild the trust and unity we need to get through this crisis.

This applies more broadly to supporters and opponents of the coalition as well. Our insults and fighting is only making the problem worse-both sides of the argument have equally strong and legitimate reasons for their stances, and condemning one another is only reopening old wounds and grudges that we can’t afford to waste our energy on right now.

That is why, above all else, it is critically important for both supporters and opponents of the coalition to set aside their differences and cooperate. This crisis is larger than any single group or party, and the needs of the country must come before individual partisan desires. Try and see the other side’s point of view, and above all, please try and ease off the rhetoric on both sides-it’s not getting us anywhere.

Canada deserves no less.

Flaherty acts like it's 2006, IHS-Global Insight reads my mind

Doesn't the title of this CTV article say it all: Flaherty hints at tax cuts as consumer confidence dips. More tax cuts. More emphasis on consumption. More focus on spending. No focus on jobs. No clarity on unemployment. No solution to long term economic problems.

Meanwhile, at least I can join company with IHS-Global Insight economists.

Economist Dale Orr of IHS-Global Insight said the most effective form of tax cuts to stimulate the economy short-term may be through eliminating the five-per-cent federal goods and services tax for one year on big consumer items such as autos, furniture and appliances.

With consumers worried about their jobs, Orr said Canadians are more likely to pocket than spend any income tax reduction. And an across-the-board one-point drop in the GST would likely be more costly and less effective than a larger, targeted cut, he added.

"It's in the big items where you can actually change consumer spending," Orr said. "If you save a few pennies on a cup of coffee, nobody is going to buy more coffee because it's lower.

"But if people are thinking (they) should get a new car this year or next, if (they) can save five per cent by buying it this year, it could be effective."

I suggested this in December, and elaborated on the idea through other social networking sites. Since then, I have mixed feelings towards a temporary 5% GST cut. While it would keep consumer spending up, it wouldn't really solve job losses. It might encourage more part-time job growth, but underemployment is just barely a step above unemployment.

Take for example my experience today at Market Mall in Calgary. I was in a shoe store with dozens of shoppers. Every two or three shoppers were clutching several pairs of shoes to try on. Two employees tried pathetically to attend to these customers, getting pairs of shoes for them to try on, ringing through sales, giving advice on shoe sizes and passing on product knowledge. I ended up leaving the store, frustrated, with the lack of service and poor management. Furthermore, they didn't have the sizes in the styles I wanted to purchase. In the end, they might as well not have had a sale at all. Would another employee have helped? Maybe. Would sales have been higher? Perhaps. But more part-time help would only be a bandaid on a larger problem. A temporary 1-year GST suspension might convince Canadians to buy big-ticket items, but is that enough to bring back jobs in the autosector? In manufacturing? In forrestry?

Tax-cuts are not enough, and I hope that we do not get a tax-cut only budget at the end of the month. We need an innovative, non-partisan, all-inclusive solution to our economic stumbling. I'm not sure if Harper and his brand of conservatives are the right people for the job, but right now the ball is in their court.