The Election Around the Corner (or, how policy discussion is stifled in Canada)

We live in interesting times. Politicians, policy-makers and the public are being confronted with a veritable wealth of issues which warrant debate, dialogue and decisions. How we consider issues related to the economy, health, the environment, security and democracy will have more than an impact on the Canada of today; it will help shape the Canada of tomorrow.

So why aren't we having this dialogue in any meaningful way?

I blame an odd, made-in-Ottawa creation. A creature that is difficult to pin down, almost impossible to see, but incredibly influential. It's called "the election around the corner" and beware...it's killing the public policy discourse in this country.

Readers of this blog (yes, I still cling to the hope that we have actual readers) will recall that the absence of debate in Canada is a sore point with me. Too often, we see debate taking a backseat to the drive to create a wedge.

In the case of the government, this has meant using issues to ignite the base, support fund-raising and paint the opposition into corners. In the case of the opposition, it has meant looking for opportunities to embarrass the government or score quick political points without actually taking the time and effort to define themselves as a real alternative.

Why? Because everyone is fixated on the polls and the fact that the types of issues which we should be working together to address are not the types of issues that can be dealt with easily or quickly.

Put another way, long-term issues require thoughtful consideration, engagement and ultimately hard decisions - decisions which will inevitably anger as many people as they please. In other words, they are fraught with risk for the politician who knows that he or she may be knocking on doors in 6-8 weeks asking for a vote.

The focus on the election around the corner has resulted in more and more emphasis being placed on issues management and communications. Policy development, by comparison, has taken a backseat unless it can be demonstrated that it will either put the opposition in an awkward position (if you are government), or if it will be seen to be contrary to the latest controversial position taken by the government (if you are in opposition).

So instead of substantive debate we get, "Did you know that the Liberal-NDP-Separatist coalition favours putting people in jail if they don't fill out a census form?" Or, "Did you know that a Cabinet Minister may quit and work at a law firm - does that sound right to you?" Climate change versus Jaffer-Guergis; health care versus renovations on the Hill; the economy of the 21st century versus the gun registry. Sadly, were the winners ever in doubt?

Now some people will say, "Welcome to politics. What did you expect?" I appreciate this view, but only to a point. There are far too many important issues at play these days for us to simply accept that this is what politics should be about. This is where the electorate comes into play.

An engaged and informed citizenry is fundamental to an effective and functioning democracy. If we want to change the tone on the Hill or shift the focus towards those issues which truly will shape the Canada of tomorrow, we need to be engaged and we need to set a different level of expectation for our politicians. Are we prepared to do this? I hope so.

Interestingly, the polls have not moved in any meaningful way since 2006. Think about that for a moment. In five years public opinion has not shifted significantly in one direction or another. The focus on the election around the corner has more or less...kept everyone where they are. Perhaps there's a message in there...

This public policy message was brought to you by A Guy Watching Politics. On a Friday night. Sad, I know.

Thoughts?

So Mr. Flaherty, where do we go from here?

On Tuesday the Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, will release the government's fall economic and fiscal update. We're being told to expect something straightforward and containing no mini-policy announcements, say like the one that nearly lost the government the confidence of the House in 2008. So far, so good.

What we can expect to hear is that the government's finances are poor and that the deficit has grown. However, the Minister will reaffirm the government's commitment to balancing the books by around 2015. The question to ask Mr. Flaherty is "how?"

The government's strategy has rested on three things: the rollback of stimulus; stronger tax revenue through growth in the economy; and cuts in government spending. Let's consider this a moment.

Stimulus spending will end, likely before the next budget - though the Minister has a left a small window open that this timetable may change depending on how soft the global recovery turns out to be. However, the end of stimulus will not restore the nation's financial health, it will mainly stem the bleeding from the state coffers.

Ok, so how about the projected growth in government revenue as the economy begins to expand? The challenge here is that the government's projections assume a recovery and pace of economic growth similar to that which occurred after previous recessions. Unfortunately, this does not seem likely.

Our major trading partner is continuing to falter and in fact could fall back into recession. Other OECD countries (Germany is an exception) are faring poorly, and the spectre of sovereign defaults in the European Union continues to loom. While their growth and resilience is impressive, emerging markets like China and India cannot compensate for this loss of economic output in the West (never mind the fact that the West has been the biggest consumer of emerging market exports).

So, if the end of stimulus is akin to us no longer digging a hole, and the prospects for "normal" growth must be tempered, where does that leave us? Spending, that's where.

The government will need to look at spending if it is serious about balancing the books. Let's not forget that the Conservatives spent heavily before the recession (defence, Quebec) and they have cut taxes - corporate, personal and consumption in the form of the GST. These steps have seriously limited their maneuverability - and that of any other party aspiring to power.

We will not hear much tomorrow about "the plan." However, we can now count on entering a period of trial balloons and ground softening to prepare us for an austerity budget.

Thoughts?

So what's the question?

The phrase "framing the ballot box question" is one you will have read here and heard in the media. It refers to the one thing an average voter boils all of the electoral noise down to as they prepare to cast a ballot.

My money is on Canada having an election in the late winter/early spring of 2011 (I don't see this Fall happening). If so, we are now entering the period when parties begin to more deliberately frame the question.

For the government, this means getting out quickly and defining an opposition that has thus far failed to define itself. Hence Mr. Flaherty's highly partisan (and highly uncharacteristic) speech last week.

For the opposition, the trick is more difficult. Opposition parties like the NDP and the Liberals need to differentiate themselves from the government. However, they also need to make distinctions between one another. For the NDP, its gets a bit more complicated when you factor in the Greens. For the Bloc it's, well, nevermind. They're the Bloc. It's all good.

So what are we seeing in terms of the party's preferences for "the question?" To start, we have a government focused on making the economy the issue (rightly so), but taking an important issue and wrapping it in the very charged "coalition" blanket. The question will be "Do you trust us or the coalition?" This may (ok, will) be misleading, but it can extremely powerful in making distinctions for voters, generating financial support and putting opponents on the back foot.

For the Liberals, the plan seems to be about defining a broader, more inclusive Canada. Mr. Ignatieff's comments about family and household issues not being seen as "touchy-feely" gives you a sense as to where they are going. It will be a have your cake and eat it too message - Canada can be progressive, inclusive, prosperous and financially sound. However, without the details voters will struggle. The Liberals will also look to convince voters that they, and not the NDP, offer the best chance of stoping the Conservatives from getting their majority and offering credible opposition.

The NDP is fighting the government, the Liberals and the Greens. A tall order for a party that took a credibility hit during the gun registry vote. They will appeal to the voter who is looking for the House to keep the government honest; the voter who knows it will be a minority and therefore sees the need for a third party in the House that can be effective and has experience. Theirs will become a riding-specific fight as they look to hold back the Greens.

As for the Bloc? Nevermind.

Thoughts?

Ready to Oppose?

With all of the recent commentary on the Liberal's caucus retreat, recent poll numbers and the generally positive media coverage of the Liberal Express, I have found myself wondering what the Official Opposition has learned in the past year.

The party line is that things have improved, the ship has been righted, the caucus is on side and they are ready to be a true Official Opposition. In truth, the recent signs are encouraging.

Now, as they enter the fall session in the House my thinking is that the party needs to more deliberately frame its message to the voter; to frame the infamous ballot box question. Already there are signs that this is a priority, with the "Big Red Tent" messaging.

Here are some suggestions on how to build on their summer momentum:

1. Play the arrogance card. Often. Canadians draw a fine line between respecting strength and loathing arrogance, and for many the Harper government has on more than one occasion come very close to that line. The Liberals need to make this a core part of their message.

2. Play the bully card. Often. Memorize the list of public servants who have been marginalized by the governemnt for making their views known and weave it into your messaging.

3. Do not forget the economy. Points 1 and 2 are great, but at the end of the day given a choice between worrying about their jobs or the census, voters will focus on their jobs. The Liberals need a clear message on their vision for the economy, and a credible plan as to how they will achieve it. At the end of the day, voters will ask "how much will this Big Red Tent cost?"

The improving Liberal fortunes we have heard about are, to some degree, a result of them no longer making the types of mistakes that were occurring in 2009-2010. However, their fortunes have also improved as their opponents have suffered missteps. They cannot count on this type of political generosity forever.

Now is the time to start to stake their claim to be a true government-in-waiting. This means being ready to oppose and presenting a clear option. Are they ready?

Thoughts?

Divided, but not yet conquered...

In the past few weeks, a number of polls have been published and they all tell us the same thing - an election would not likely change much. In some, the Conservatives are falling; in others, they are holding a small lead.

No one is gaining or losing ground in any significant way. Why?

There have been some good pieces on this topic recently (Jeffrey Simpson's from the August 10 Globe and Mail being one that stands out for me). For this blogger, one point that would be worth exploring is the extent to which the Conservatives have not been better able to capitalize on a divided opposition.

Why is this on my mind? Perhaps the combination of the recent news about former PM Chrétien's health and the whole coalition chatter that followed the UK elections has me looking back at when - and why - we last had a majority government in Canada.

For many, the Liberal's success can be attributed to the fact that they faced divided opposition. Agreed - this played a big part. However, don't we have a similar situation today?

Let's consider this a moment.

From 1993-2003 we had 3 successive Liberal majority governments. Some key characteristics of their time in office included:

- a weakened opposition, with a lot of vote splitting on the right;
- the Bloc owned Quebec;
- a strong Minister of Finance who had to bring in fiscal restraint and then was able to be more expansive when the national finance's improved;
- a number of provinces were run by the Conservatives; and
- a national challenge in the form of the referendum.

From 2006-2010, the Conservatives have won 2 minority governments. Some key characteristics of their time in office include:

- a divided opposition, with the Liberals weakly-led and increasingly occupying the left with the NDP;
- the Bloc still own Quebec;
- a strong Minister of Finance who now has to bring in fiscal restraint, following a period in which he was able to be more expansive because the national finance's were strong;
- a number of provinces are run by the Liberals (or Danny Williams); and
- a national challenge in the form of the severe global economic contraction.

There are some important differences for sure.

First, the opposition the Liberals faced included the upstart Reform and the separatist Bloc. Today, the opposition are all established parties with relatively strong brands. Second, vote splitting among the right was more prevalent in 1993-2003period, particularly in vote-rich Ontario.

For me, while these differences are significant they don't fully explain the challenge the Conservatives have faced in reaching that electoral promised land. Are there other explanations worth discussing?

I think the events over the past 6-8 months start to answer this question.

In 2003, when Paul Martin was held to minority, you could argue that there was still public apprehension about Stephen Harper and what a "reform-conservative" government would look like. Perhaps the same thing occurred in 2006, when Harper won his first minority.

Today, what may be holding them back is not the public's fear of the unknown, but rather their concern with what they do know and have seen.

The proroguing of Parliament twice in 12 months to avoid the accountability of the House. The lack of respect for the same transparency campaigned upon. The disregard for almost unified advice on the census. The excessive expenditures on aircraft and summits during a time of apparent restraint.

Maybe the public is taking notice. And maybe this is why the Liberals hang on, the NDP remains a player, and the Bloc own Quebec.

You and I? We get more of the same.

Thoughts?

Stand up and be counted..or not, it's now your call

Here we are in the last days of July, a time when politics would normally take a back seat to BBQ's and holidays. So raise your hand and let me know if you are surprised that the debate on the long-form census has become such a big story.

As you raise your hand, please be sure to also indicate:

- your sex
- age
- mother tongue
- household income
- level of education
- how many pets you have
- what side of the bed you sleep on

What's that? You don't have to answer these intrusive questions anymore? You say you've been saved from this Big Brother-esque invasion of your privacy? Let's talk about this for a moment.

The issue that has unfolded over the past 2 weeks has been well-documented, so I won't rehash it all here. Briefly, numerous groups have criticized the decision made by the government, arguing that without the information provided through the long-form census the public policy process will be undermined; that decisions would be made absent key statistical evidence.

The government's decision was apparently made despite the advice provided by Statistics Canada, and subsequent government spin has resulted in the Chief Statistician resigning - an extremely rare course of action for a career public servant to take.

Given the furore, one has to ask why the government would move in this direction. The answer apparently lies in ideology, and a belief that the state should not compel people to reveal personal information.

Interestingly, privacy concerns such as these have not been raised in any significant way to the Privacy Commissioner. This simply was not an issue that seized the vast majority of Canadians.

However, while that might not appear to be an issue to the average Canadian it seems to be an issue for a Prime Minister who in certain areas takes a more traditional libertarian view on the role of the state. For the PM, there should be limits on what the government can compel of its citizens.

Now, I doubt anyone would disagree with this - of course there should be, and in fact are, limits. However, to deprive all levels of government and a host of other important organizations of the very information needed to make sound social and economic policy all in the name of ideology is, from my perspective, a bad idea.

So what next? Well, to start the House Industry Committee will hear from Minister Clement, who is responsible for the census. The Committee has also called Dr. Sheikh to appear, so that he can provide more information on the advice the agency gave. All to say, the story isn't going away just yet.

And that leads me to this final thought. Does the government want it to go away entirely, or is this another example of a decision intended to rally a base in advance of an election? Recent media articles have raised this as a distinct possibility.

Let's hope this isn't the case. A bad decision taken for partisan reasons is never a happy mix. Now, can I have my summer back?

Thoughts?

Back by popular demand...

Finally, at long last...the return. After what seemed an interminable period of time, a re-emergence sure to delight the faithful. Yes, back by popular demand...!

No, not the return of me and this blog. That would be a tad arrogant and presumptuous. Plus, I am still struggling to determine if there are faithful followers.

I am referring, of course, to the return of the Conservatives. The recent Speech from the Throne and Budget mark the government's return to its roots. Kind of like the Beatles "Get Back" sessions, but with less bickering and caught on-tape sniping.

You see, the past few years have seen the governing Tories focus their attention on growing the size of government. Federal spending grew, Quebec was wooed and the result was...another minority government.

In fact, save for those months in the not-so-distant past when Mr. Ignatieff tried to prompt an election and Liberal support plummeted, the government has never really been that close to its sought after majority.

Cue the financial crisis and the opening of the government taps. The purse strings were loosened and the government got into the business of, well, business. The measures themselves appear to have worked well, but then the bill came in.

Now, 12 months on from that "free for all-cash for all" budget, and the government has just delivered a new budget that starts to take them back to where they once belonged.

The stimulus will end, which was to be expected. And Canadians are being advised to prepare for some real belt-tightening. Again, to be expected.

But what I find interesting is the fact that the crisis and ensuing tab may actually position the government to do the things it has long favoured doing.

You see, if the government is not going to raise taxes (and don't for a minute underestimate the impact the GST cut has had on the federal purse) then something has to give. Most economists agree that Canada cannot grow out of this hole. So, if you don't raise more revenue or receive it through a growing economy, then the only option is to cut spending.

And by cutting spending, this does not mean freezing MP salaries or cutting down on government appointments. These are symbolic areas which may resonate with some quarters of the public, but which account for little in terms of overall government spending.

What will therefore be needed in order to reach the government's deficit reduction objectives are real cuts to spending. The kind of cuts favoured by many members of the government while in opposition or working for groups like the Taxpayer's Federation or the National Citizen's Coalition.

Maybe, just maybe, the crisis presented the government with an opportunity. An opportunity to get back to its core values and roots. A real chance to enact a change in the role of government.

If so, then shouldn't this be the area on which the Opposition focuses their questions? With all due respect, I think it's a far more important topic than the trials and tribulations of Mr. Jaffer and Ms. Guergis.

Thoughts?

New name, same deal

Apparently, someone out there has a registered trademark on the term "Politics Watch". No, I don't think they are posting anything these days, but that I gather doesn't matter. For some reason they are concerned my sporadic posts could cause their name and by extension themselves material damage. Sigh.

All to say, welcome "A Guy Watching Politics". Yes, that was the best I could come up with on short notice and a strongly worded email breathing down my neck.

New guy, same deal. Stay tuned...

Cabinet Shuffled. So what? Now what?

Well, there you go. We're 2+ days and change removed from the shuffle and there are really only two questions for me:

First question: so what? There were no major changes as the big guys all stayed put (though McKay lost some Atlantic clout). In addition, the Raitt move was expected. Day moving to TBS was somewhat of a surprise (more on that in the now what), but not earth-shattering.

However, for the reasons laid out in a previous post, it all amounts to little. Yes, it's great that Ambrose has shown hard work and a head-down attitude can lead to redemption, but ultimately decisions and communications are run so forcefully from PMO that it really doesn't make a difference who has moved where. The boss is the boss is the boss.

Second question: now what? Media has been all over the Day move, characterizing it as an important message from Harper about the move to austerity and fiscal restraint.

As this blog and others have noted, the Harper government had tax cut/spent themselves into deficit before the economic crisis took hold. In fact, public spending under Harper increased more than it did during the Chretien-Martin years. Stimulus compounded the problem (albeit it exponentially) - it didn't create it.

OK, but the spinners remind me that Day was the man who presided over fiscally conservative Alberta. Again, as others have pointed out that this doesn't quite ring true. Dinning tightened spending, Day spent. A lot. Oil prices were rising so as Treasurer he could afford to. Yes, he did introduce a flat-tax. Don't get me started on flat-taxes..

It is also timely to remember that some form of expenditure review has been underway at TBS for some time. John McCallum - yes that one - was tasked with finding $12 billion in savings. Not sure how far he got.

The problem is, once you rule out tax increases or cuts in social spending and defence, there's not much left. Sure, there are niche program cuts. But in the grand scheme of things, these are akin to what's behind the cushions and the occasional $20 bill you find in your winter coat in November.

Where is the dialogue on the upcoming discussion with the provinces on health care spending? Demographics will loom large in any discussion on health care and other benefit programs. Can you manage the budget deficit if these are off the table and there are no tax increases?

Important questions, but few answers.

We have a budget in about 5 weeks. What will be the focus? Will there be a longer-term vision, with clear year-over-year targets? I can tell you that if the focus of a deficit reduction plan is the "return to growth and therefore a return to tax revenue" story, I will be upset. Mind you, not surprised. Just upset.

Now is the time for serious thinking about what Canada needs in order to succeed and compete in the 21st century. The question touches at social and economic policy, and increasingly they need to considered in tandem.

Is this government prepared to do so? Is this opposition?

You tell me.

Coming Soon to a Blog Near You: Cabinet Shuffle

So, speculation abound that tomorrow will bring a Cabinet shuffle. I say speculation because as of right now (9:50 pm EST) we have no official confirmation that anything is planned. Sure, we have the usual "informed sources" and the like, but nothing official from the boys in blue.

What we know is that Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson stepped down on the weekend, thereby creating a vacancy. We also know that a shuffle of some sort was under consideration for some time - perhaps this is what re-calibration does to a PM.

So, what's the chatter?

• Vic Toews is rumoured to be heading out of Treasury Board;
• Lisa Raitt could be moved out of Natural Resources;
• Maxime Bernier could be back. No word yet on who he would bring to a swearing in ceremony or what they would be wearing...

Safe money is on the big players staying put. Flaherty can't be touched with a budget around the corner. As well, for all of the debate on the Afghan detainee issue I don't see the PM moving McKay. It's tantamount to an admission of a problem, and this guy doesn't make such admissions.

Really though, what we know is that we don't know anything. Speculation like this is like oxygen to pundits, bloggers and the twitter community.

The bigger question for me is not so much "who goes where", but "does it make any difference?" So much about this government is controlled from the centre.

The PM remains THE spokesperson on most issues of substance. PMO pens more scripts than Hollywood for its MPs. Who the Minister is seems to mean less and less these days. The phrase "there's no I in TEAM, but there's an M and an E" may have been uttered by the PM at a recent Cabinet meeting - we are looking into it.

All to say, stay tuned for tomorrow and try not to get too dizzy from the spin.

Thoughts? Comments?