The National Debate in Microcosm...brought to you by Ontario

Nearly four months have passed since the federal election, and we are about six weeks away from Ontario's trip to the polls. However, while there will have only been five months between the two elections by the time Ontarians vote, the economic landscape has shifted.

Since May 2, we have seen global economic conditions deteriorate - typified by the sovereign debt challenges in the European Union and the United States. Importantly, the spectre of a new phase to the economic crisis has fostered a more public and open debate about state finances and how to build a more sustainable model of government.

In just four months, external events have made voters more sensitive to the choices that Western governments are facing. This reality will shape the narrative of Ontario's election

More often than not an election is a mini-referendum on what has happened; a vote on the government's performance. Opposition parties don't win, governments lose. You can see elements of this in the Progressive Conservative's tactics thus far. Their goal is to make this election a referendum on the McGuinty government's record.

Fair enough. The voter should consider the government's performance, both on its face and as an indicator as to how they will govern going forward. Unfortunately, too often the focus becomes on the past and real discussion about the future is limited.

Ontario cannot afford such a campaign this time around.

The province was battered by the recession, its major trading partner is suffering and its manufacturing base continues to experience erosion. At the same time, the population is aging and social costs are continuing to climb. Current projections show a $16 billion deficit and a province that is $235 billion in debt.

These challenges demand a campaign that is forward looking; one which is seized on how best to strike the right balance between taxes and spending, cuts and investments, and how we can position Ontario for tomorrow. This is what the voter should expect and demand.

A campaign which brings an open debate on our challenges and choices is the type of campaign that Ontarians deserve. But it is also the type of campaign that Canadians should be watching.

Why? In many respects, Ontario's election will be a microcosm of our national debate - the debate we should have had in May. In May the federal election, depending on who you spoke to, was about Harper's contempt or the "socialist-separatist" power grab. It was more about whether to have a majority, and less about the challenges Canada is facing.

Four months on and external events have conspired to draw greater attention towards the real choices governments are facing as they deal with a world increasingly defined by uncertainty. Against this back-drop Ontario voters have an opportunity to consider how a prospective government will tackle the deficit, the environment, and social spending.

The outcome will not only affect Ontario. It will also influence how other provinces and, importantly, the federal government start to address these choices.

All to say...stay tuned.

Coming soon to a province near (many of) you...

For politics watchers here in Ottawa, the summer often offers slim pickings for those looking to satisfy their need for all things political. This is particularly true in an election year, when we move quickly from the pace and excitement of a federal election into the summer doldrums.

While the global financial crisis and the NDP have each done their best to satisfy our political cravings, it typically takes the imminent return of Parliament to really focus our attention. This time, however, things are different. Why? cue drum roll

Coming soon to a province near (many of) you...elections!

Yes politics watchers, five provincial elections are scheduled for this fall: Newfoundland & Labrador, PEI, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Candidates are being selected, ads are already airing, and messages are being sharpened in advance of what could prove to be a very interesting fall.

In a recent blog, I noted the following:

"The 2011 book on Canadian politics has two chapters. Chapter One was the May 2 federal election. Chapter Two will be the elections in those five provinces. Depending on the outcomes, Canada could look quite different by the end of the year."

After #elxn41, there was a lot of discussion about whether Canada was becoming more conservative; about whether the electorate may be shifting right in terms of its outlook and priorities. Here at A Guy Watching Politics, the view has been that we really won't know this until at least the end of 2011.

The upcoming elections will provide more insight as to how political views in Canada may be changing. With that in mind, over the coming few months we will take some time to look at each of these five elections individually - the key issues, the outlook and implications for the broader Canadian political narrative.

Some things to consider:

- will the global economic environment affect the outcome?

- will we see a consolidation of conservatism in Canada, or will voters decide to elect an off-set to a federal Conservative government?

- what will the key ballot box issues be in each province, and what will this tell us about Canadians' priorities?

The last point is an important one. Given the areas of provincial responsibility (see http://politicswatcher.blogspot.com/2009/10/you-get-this-i-get-that-division-of.html), provincial/local issues can play a big part in how these elections finish. While this offers an important degree of uniqueness, it can also limit the degree to which we tie a result into the broader Canadian narrative.

All to say, there will be a lot to consider and discuss. As always, your views and perspective are welcomed. Let's hear them!

Role Call

There has been a lot of discussion in recent weeks about Stephen Harper's obsession with the Liberal Party of Canada; about his desire to see it marginalized. I think there is more to this notion than something purely adversarial.

While I agree that Mr. Harper exhibits an unhealthy obsession with his perceived enemies and strong tendency to tilt at windmills, I don't believe the destruction of the Liberals is his primary goal. From my perspective, his goal to re-cast the role of government in the eyes of Canadians.

He now has his chance.

Whether we like it or not, Canada is about the embark on a debate on the role of government. The combination of a Conservative majority and the fiscal health of the government has provided a unique platform for the Harper government to move forward on what has been the long-standing pre-occupation of the Prime Minister.

Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste

In a posting last year I wrote about how the steps the government took in 2009 at the height of the economic crisis and the ensuing fiscal challenge Canada faced would provide the Conservatives with an opportunity to get back to where they once belonged.

(http://politicswatcher.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html)

The deficit grew exponentially and the means/will of the government to re-establish equilibrium through the tax system was minimal. Tax increases were swiftly ruled off the table, and in fact cuts such as those to the GST had the effect of pushing the government into deficit before the economic crisis.

This left reductions in government spending as the principal means of balancing the budget. But such reductions are a delicate thing to manage when you have a minority government. Things have now changed.

There is Strength in Numbers

For all of his ideas, views and tactics, Mr. Harper never truly had the means to do what he has wanted to do. Yes, he has benefitted from a divided and weak opposition which has enabled him to reduce the GST and pass the corporate tax cuts. Consider this step one.

Thanks to the acquiescence of a weak opposition the government's ability to be activist is now more limited. It would take either a tax increase (e.g. to the GST) or a roll-back of corporate tax cuts to deliver to the government the surpluses it needs to be more active in the lives of Canadians without going into deficit.

Put another way, Mr. Harper has used tax cuts to tie his hands and those of anyone who follows him.

However, lowering taxes is one thing. The ability to reduce government spending is something altogether different. This brings us to today.

Unlike 2010, Mr. Harper now has the majority he needs (House and Senate) to get Parliamentary approval for his budgets. He is no longer dependent on the NDP, Liberals or the Bloc.

So where does that leave us?

1. The government has a deficit that the economy cannot simply grow out from.
2. The government has consciously and deliberately limited its own ability to use the tax system to raise funds.
3. The Conservatives now have comfortable majorities in the House and the Senate, with no federal election on the cards for four years.

Mr. Harper now has the means to get back to where he once belonged - to where he was when he was a Reform MP, and where he was as the President of the National Citizens' Coalition. Flowing from the points above, the only way the government can bring the books back into balance is to limit spending.

Transfers to Canadians are off the table, as are apparently transfers to provinces. What does this leave? Which government programs and activities are on the table now as possible candidates for cuts or elimination?

The Role of Government

I don't think Mr. Harper maintains a strict "wage war and sell stamps" view of the federal government. However, I don't think he is far from that view. My sense is that he is a strong believer in the division of powers, and as such favours actions which enable the provinces to be more active.

While I can understand the logic behind such a viewpoint, I struggle with the impact this could have on our sense of nation.

My personal view is that federal government has a unique and important role to play by thinking of the whole; by seeing Canada as the sum of its parts. The provinces are not burdened by this responsibility, and therefore will understandably act in their own interests.

However, the federal government needs to be more than just a side of the ledger in the division of powers; it is the Government of Canada and needs to act as such. When the current government considers its role and the role of government, my hope is that they move beyond an "us" and "them" mentality, and towards a role more rooted in partnership and co-operation.

***

Opportunity is a funny thing. To be truly realized, it requires not just an idea or notion, but also the means to act. Stephen Harper now has both in his possession. What will he do?

Will he be guided by ideology, or he will he be guided by a broader sense of Canada and how we work best when we leverage the sum of our parts?

All I want for Christmas...

Here we are approaching the end of another year. For those of us (sadly) obsessed with Ottawa and its constant performance, I think 2010 will be remembered as a year of several mini-dramas...but not much in terms of substance.

In no particular order, this year has seen the political classes focus their energy on: prorogation; Rahim and Helena; the G20 and its fake lake; the long-form census; Ignatieff’s bus tour; Harper’s concert tour (ok, two performances); potash; by-elections; and construction contracts. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but nor is it a particularly warming one for those of us looking for real debate and dialogue.

That’s not to say that some of these issues (and others not mentioned) are not important or substantive. Potash, prorogation or the census issue clearly are. So is the future of the Afghan mission. However, the discussion and debate is often transitory. Issues emerge and debate occurs, but at some point it becomes clear that the issue does not satisfy a broader political goal (i.e. electoral prospects), and it falls from our collective radar as we move on to “The. Next. Big. Thing.”

Why is this happening? I think there are a few reasons. First, we have a government that knows it can provoke and challenge without any telling reprisal. The opposition does not want an election, so its condemnation of the latest government initiative does not amount to much.

When the government does “back down”, it does in response to polling data. The advocate of this approach to governing would call it strategic and measured. The critic would see it as akin to a child testing to see what they can get away with. The answer is likely somewhere in between.

The opposition’s failure to offer clear alternatives is also a major factor at play. For example, to this day I still do not know what a Liberal government would look like.

In a minority Parliament, this absence of a defined alternative makes no sense to me. As someone told me once, you should always have your cv up-to-date. After more than one year since trying to provoke an election, the Liberals have failed to craft an alternative vision for governing the country. I want the reason I "hire" someone to be based on more than than the fact that they aren't the other guy.

Failing to define a clear alternative results in the focus all opposition parties seem to have with the sensational...on the political theater. The attention paid to the thinner issues on offer does generate short-term gains - hence the small movements in weekly polling numbers.

Up to a point, I can see the logic to this tactic. It’s the “death by a thousand cuts” idea, whereby the opposition tries to use individual issues to develop a broader narrative about the government. The working material is certainly there. But up to this point in time, they have failed to develop this narrative. So the bouncing from issue to issues continues.

Another driver of this state of affairs is the “election around the corner” mentality I have mentioned previously on this blog. The government is probably comfortable with all of the theater and short-term discussion, as long as it does not factor significantly into how voters in those select swing ridings think. The opposition, which seems to be more "spray and pray" is too focused on trying to please everyone, which history will tell you pleases no one.

So, where does that leave us? Well, as the title of this posting suggests, it takes me to my Christmas wish list. What is it I want?

- A government that puts forward its plan for dealing with the challenges of today, and for positioning the Canada of tomorrow.

- An opposition that gives me an alternative; a clear sense as to what a different government would look like.

- A Parliament better focused on dialogue and debate on the government’s plan and the opposition’s position.

- An end to gossip-column politics; the challenges Canada is facing are worth more of Ottawa’s time than much of which has garnered the spotlight.

I also had on my list “a public prepared to hold everyone to account.” In previous posts I have lamented the absence of a more engaged citizenry. However, the stagnant polling numbers for all parties do tell us something about the public and the fact that they have not been seized in any meaningful way by any of this spectacle.

In our own, typically Canadian way, perhaps we are engaged. We have elected a minority government in each of the last three elections. The polling numbers from 2006-2010 have not moved in any significant way. Perhaps this is our way of saying that we are not captivated; that no party (outside of the Bloc in Quebec) has resonated with us. That we expect better.

Thoughts?

The grass is always greener...

Well, tonight a major political leader came out and addressed friend, foe and the undecided about a major public policy issue. There was vision and substance (though not as much of the latter as many would like), and an effort to frame the debate and build support. Alas, this did not happen in Canada. It was Obama. Again.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/president-obamas-remarks-to-congress/article1281358/

As this blog is about Canadian politics and our upcoming election, I raise the Obama speech as an example of the type of discourse which is lacking in Canada. Increasingly it seems we are resorting to fear mongering ("vote Liberal and the crime bill will die, and your tax credit is gone!") or vagueness ("We can do better"), missing an opportunity to meaningfully engage Canadians on issues like innovation or democratic reform.

The debate in the U.S. is far from perfect and contains its own healthy doses of fear mongering and a lack of mutual respect. But it is a debate around issues, around the role of government and what citizens should and should not expect from the state.

As we head into our (annual) campaign season, here's hoping we can see a similar effort to frame issues and engage the public on the issues which mean the most to them.

From poll to poll

The first of many polls we'll highlight here came out this morning. Conducted by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and the Globe and Mail, the poll puts the Conservatives up by 5 points over the Liberals (35-30). The NDP are at 14, the Greens at 9. In Quebec, the Bloc is up to 49 - it's highest score since the 2004 election. Here's the article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-poll-gives-tories-the-edge/article1278722/

Of course the poll does not take into account the ads recently released by the Liberals (more on those later this week).

Polls are funny things - part snapshot, part trend analysis. As more come out, including the daily tracking ones conducted by Nick Nanos and co., we'll discuss what to look for in a poll.

Later.

The first (past the) post...

Well, here we are on the verge of another federal election. Has it only been 11 months since the last one? I guess time flies when you're...no, wait, that's not right. Who's been having fun since the last vote? C'mon, raise your hands.

What has happened since October 2008? Perhaps a short recap is in order:

• Another minority government - not fun.
• Major global economic crisis - not fun.
• Laughable/mean-spirited economic and fiscal update - not fun.
• Prospects of the coalition - funny, maybe. But not fun.
• Governor General allows kids to take a time-out. Again, funny but also not fun.
• Dion, gone; Iggy in. Fun for one, not so much for the other.
• Having to introduce a budget that goes against every fibre of your political being - not fun.

You get the picture. And now, after a summer of absolutely nothing except bad weather we're told an election is on the way. Kids go back to school, grown-ups go back to vote. But what exactly are we voting on? Surely to God if we are going to spend $300 million on this we should have some sense as to what it's about.

Well, over the next 2 months, that's exactly what I want to explore on this blog. Who's who in the zoo? What are the leaders saying (and not saying)? How do the platforms measure up (Dear Conservatives, no glossy concert-style programmes this time, please. Let's get some discussion of the issues). Who won the debates? Who's wearing the blue sweater?

Importantly, all without spin. My comments will aim to be critical, but impartial. There will be no partisan ranting from me. That's where you come in...

Tell me (and the 2.4 other people likely to read this) what you think about a post, an issue, a leader, an ad, anything at all about this campaign. My blog, your forum. Deal? Your comments are welcome and encouraged. Fire away!

That's it for the first post. The House returns on September 14th, so we have a week of posturing and punditry ahead of us. Yippee!

Later.