Ignatieff’s Budgetary Gambit – Win, Lose, or Draw?
Well, it seems there are some interesting times ahead for Canadian politics following the tabling of Stephen Harper’s new budget. As expected, the budget features many concessions to sway the opposition parties to support the Conservative budget and allow them to remain in the seat of government. And while the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have held steadfast to their plans of bringing Harper’s government down by rejecting this budget, it would appear that Michael Ignatieff has other plans in mind despite his earlier support for this opposition-led coalition. Following the release of the full budget, Ignatieff has changed his position to express conditional support for this budget – the condition being the inclusion of an amendment that would require the Conservatives to submit three economic reports to follow-up on whether this economic stimulus package is indeed having the desired effect or whether it is simply pulling Canada into debt.
It’s certainly a bold move, one that will be closely watched to see what impact it will have down the road on Harper’s Conservatives, that is should Harper agree to this amendment. After all, Harper has already made numerous concessions to the opposition parties; despite whatever spin Flaherty and Harper try to put on their budget, I don’t think anyone sees this as being a Conservative budget given how many of the measures included in there go against their very platform. So I’m sure Harper feels right now like he’s already made enough peace offerings to please the opposition parties. Then there’s the fact that that if Harper agrees to such an amendment, he would essentially be putting his government on a short leash – one that would be planted firmly in the hands of Ignatieff’s Liberals. Although Harper would keep his position as Prime Minister, agreeing to this amendment would make him the equivalent of a show dog – sure he’s getting all the attention for jumping through the hoops, but it’s Ignatieff whose telling him which ones to jump through.
And yet, given the fact that the NDP and Bloc Québécois have already made it clear that they will vote against the Conservative’s budget, what choice does Harper have but to accept Ignatieff’s amendment? After all, this amendment seems like something that the public should be given – accountability for how public funds are being spent. Seeing how the US banks have decided that they don’t have to reveal what they’ve done with the billions of dollars of public funds they were given through the US government’s bailout program, I think all Canadians would appreciate knowing exactly how our money is being spent if not also to know if there’s been any tangible economic benefit/return on investment arising from these proposed expenditures.
But one thing Harper’s government has shown is a complete unwillingness to be transparent and open; indeed, let’s not forget what really got the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Québécois up in arms and calling for Harper’s government to be toppled. It wasn’t concerns that Harper wasn’t doing enough to protect the Canadian economy; rather it was a result of his attempt to try and pass a law that would slash public funding for political parties, a move clearly meant to financially cripple the opposition parties like the Liberals and NDP than the spin Harper gave rationalizing this as being indicative of a fiscally-responsive government (I tell you what, Stevie, why don’t you cut the MP’s salaries by 10-15% to show your government is fiscally-responsive. No? Just thought I’d ask). Indeed, that’s why this budget his party presented Tuesday makes little sense in terms of his party’s platform since this has less to do with his party representing those who voted for them and how they want Canada to be run, and more to do with Harper attempting to save his own hide. So, being more accountable to the public on its own has got to be a bitter pill for Harper to swallow. Add to this that it’s Ignatieff who’s prodding him on and one can only imagine the mood at 24 Sussex Drive these days.
So on the surface, this would seem to be a win-win for Ignatieff – if Harper agrees, he basically ends up putting a leash around Harper’s neck and if Harper says no, his Liberal party will vote against the budget and once again, Canadians head to the polls. But this is where Ignatieff’s gambit might fall in under him. Although Ignatieff currently carries more public support than Harper, the Liberal campaign machine is not only broken, it’s financially spent. Anyone watching the last federal election probably noted how much more visible Harper’s Conservatives were in print media and TV and radio spots than Dion’s Liberals; even Layton’s NDP seemed to get more exposure. Whether Ignatieff has a viable game plan to win more seats to create the next government or not is inconsequential since his party lacks the means and resources to get the concept out to the election-weary public, a fact I’m certain Harper’s inner circle of strategists have also noted in their discussions regarding Ignatieff’s proposal.
Also, unlike the last election where the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois all had a common foe in the form of Harper’s Conservatives, by pushing off his earlier support of the opposition party coalition, Ignatieff has in effect aligned himself with Harper in the cross hairs of the other two opposition parties. I suspect that if another election were to be held now, both the NDP and Bloc Québécois would use Ignatieff’s self-serving change in position as ammunition to demonstrate his leadership as being no different from Harper’s.
Of course, one should not discount the Canadian public’s obvious disdain over the notion of going once again to the polls after just 2 1/2 months. Under the current cloud of economic uncertainty, it’s clear that Canadians would prefer that the focus be on managing the Canadian economy and not political infighting. However, there shouldn’t be any confusion that this political uncertainty will worsen the economic situation; indeed, one need only look at what Sir Richard Branson had to say about the current political climate in Canada during a business luncheon in Toronto to get an impression of what the business-world is making of all this -
“From a businessman point of view, as long as we’re operating in a democratically elected country, we’re not too bothered by who it is that’s running the country – as long as they’re basically capable. …
We’ve never got involved in party politics, we’ve just done our thing. … It’s not something that makes a big difference from our point of view.”
Besides, let’s not forget that our country has allowed a party to serve in Parliament whose primary goal is to separate Quebec from Canada, even acting as the country’s Official Opposition for four years. And that fact has had little effect on either our economy or how foreign investors view our country in terms of investment. So concerns that the current political atmosphere would be bad for business is most likely another orchestration of the Conservative party to help convince Canadians to not leave matters in the hands of the democratic process.
Regardless, the simple fact is that the notion of yet another federal election doesn’t bode well with the Canadian public – a very odd reaction if you ask me given how our country is fighting a war to give others this same right – and both Ignatieff and Harper would be best served by not being held accountable for a return to the polls. But who exactly among these two would have the better excuse for why they shouldn’t be blamed for any future early election calls? Harper, for his refusal to have his budget held to a strict accountability in light of the current global economic plight? Or Ignatieff for insisting on keeping Harper’s government pinned under the threat of a non-confidence vote?
As I said at the start, it looks like we’re in for some interesting times.
Some other posts you may enjoy:
