Budget 2011: The policy and the politics

While some opposition leaders mused about it, I did decide to take the night to think about the budget before pronouncing judgement. Can't say it looked any more exciting or impressive in the morning, but it was worth a try.

I'll get to the politics, but for a change let's take a look at the policy. Like many past budgets from Jim Flaherty, I found this one bland and lacking in imagination and vision. Which as I've also said before isn't really surprising; conservatives don't believe in the vision thing.

What we got in Budget 2011 was a smattering of initiatives here and there that nibble around the edges, but don't really go hard after any major issues. You do, however, get a sense of where their priorities lay. And, to delve into politics for a just a minute, you can see the same strategy the Conservatives ran on in 2008 at play: selected low-cost items designed to appeal to specific niche groups.

There's a small bump to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, a tax credit for kids in arts programs, a caregiver tax credit, a volunteer firefighters tax credit, lots of little things that. They love tax credits, even if they complicate the tax code. None of them amount to much, but it allows them to say they're helping all these different groups. Most people don't dig past the headline to see it's peanuts.

While the budget nibbles around the edges in a lot of areas, it fails to take action on any of the major issues looming over the country and concerning Canadians. Health care funding is a ticking time bomb and the top concern of Canadians; we get a promise to not cut transfers. Pensions are another ticking demographic time bomb, but the word "pension" doesn't appear in the Budget in Brief. They're ending mandatory retirement, but that alone isn't a solution. And the support for seniors is a pittance.

While there doesn't seem to be anything offensive in the budget at first glance (the devil is often in the details of the enabling legislation) it's also a budget that, from a policy perspective, fails to address the needs of the nation. It's yet another opportunity to lead missed by a government too focused on today to think about tomorrow.

The politics

Looking at the budget, I think it's fair to say that while they may not have been salivating for an election, the Conservatives weren't going to go out of their way to avoid one either. They went in needing one opposition party to come to their side. The Liberal ask (a reversal on corporate taxes) was a non-starter, and the BQ's list too long and unrealistic. That left the NDP, with a very modest list of requests that gave the government an easy out, if they wanted it.

There are no poison pills that would make it impossible on the face for any party to support it. But while the Conservatives met a few NDP asks, it did it so modestly it's clear that, while they'd be fine with continuing to govern if the NDP somehow swallowed it, they didn't really expect them to and were fine with going to an election. The fact is, if Harper really wanted to do a deal with the NDP, he could (and would) have done so, and cheaply.

That he didn't betrays his true intent: he wants to take his chances in an election. What's going on now is just a kabuki play for the cameras, to try to frame the narrative going into the campaign: whose fault is it we're going to the polls.

For the opposition parties, it's not really about the budget. To outweigh the ethical and legal sleaze surrounding this government, it would have to be a pretty extraordinary budget. It's not. It's a failure of leadership, and when compounded with this government's other failures, there's no way it could be supported.

Interesting that while the opposition will trigger this election, it's hard to call it opportunistic for any of them. Anything can happen, of course. As I've stressed, campaigns matter. But it's hardly the ideal situation for the opposition parties to go on. There are times, though, when a government can no longer be supported, and this is one of them. Let the chips fall where they may.

Now all that's left is to play out the string in Ottawa. We'll be on the hustings, it would seem, as soon as the weekend. I have no time for those who say elections don't matter, or are an inconvenience. This is democracy, and it shouldn't be taken for granted. We have few civic duties, but this is one of them. Take the time to find someone who shares your values and get involved.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More budget developments to suit whatever narrative you want

As we reach mid-day on budget day, three hours before the press corps is released from lock-up to crash twitter with budget details and the finance minister rises in the house to speechify, there have been a number of developments that add little in the way of clarity to the likely outcome this week but, as always, can be woven to support whatever narrative tapestry you fancy.

When last I left you last night, the widely held "everybody knows" consensus was an NDP cave, but there have been plenty of nuggets since to allow you to either support that thesis, or argue the opposite.

*Last night CTV's Bob Fife reported Jack Layton told him he "wasn't blown away" by NDP-friendly budget leaks, called them "half-measures" and said Layton needed real action on pensions, which Fife said Conservatives said was a no-go. Chalk up a point for the NDP will vote no, will be spring election camp.

*Then there's the, frankly bizarre, conspiracy theory that began floating on twitter that posits a pre-planned NDP/Conservative deal to avoid an election, so Jack Layton "within weeks" for health reasons. A leadership race would follow, Tom Mulcair (in his mind, anyway) wings to victory, and then maybe an election at some future point. That sounds like mischief-making from someone's camp to me, frankly.

*But what's this, the Conservatives are separating the opposition parties in the lock-up for the first time, so the BQ and LPC can't pressure the NDP? Point for budget deal predictors.

*Oh, but Pat Martin is quoted as saying he thinks an election is probably unavoidable? Well, if Pat Martin says so...still, point for election predictors.

*But wait a minute, Jack says he's not only going to read the budget before deciding, he's going to sleep on it a night? That's such new behavior it's hard to classify it...

*What's this you say, though, a special meeting asked for with the NDP by Conservative MP Ten Menzies, minister of state for finance, and no other parties? They must be negotiating a deal, two points for no election!

*But wait, what are they going to negotiate exactly, the budget is written. Subtract a point!

*And what what, Menzies is meeting with the other parties too? That means no special deal with NDP, point for election predictors! Or he's just having those other meets as cover for the real NDP meet, point for no election restored!

*New poll from Harris-Decima shows race tightening. Clearly the opposition will want to go now, point for election! Clearly the opposition will want to wait for the numbers to keep moving, point for no election!

*The Conservative offers to negotiate clearly show they're weary of an election! No, it's all a ploy to make us think that, they're playing chess you fools!

*NDP willingness to play ball shows they really want to avoid an election! No, it's all a clever ruse so Jack can dominate the media cycle!

And I'm sure I missed 30 other contradictory pieces of information.

Wake me when it's over...

And just for fun...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Choose your own confidence week adventure

As a follower of Canadian politics, I've ceased being surprised by the regular swings in the supposed consensus opinion in Canadian politics. Every pundit and politico will know something to be the case one day (election for sure) and then the next day they'll all know the opposite (election, no way). I've ceased being surprised by the regular 180s in consensus opinion, but I am still amused by how fervently they all claim to know it. Sure, we believed the opposite yesterday, and may flip back tomorrow, but today we're certain, dagnabbit!

I don't have the energy to research it, but it would be amusing to chart the swings in election consensus over just, say, the last three months. It would look like the rocky mountains, no doubt, or a heart monitor. As I write this Tuesday evening it's election no-way, but by breakfast on budget Tuesday it may have changed, so stay by the news ticker for updates. But apparently the current consensus began forming when politicians didn't act like total a-holes in question period this afternoon, and solidified with evening budget leaks on NDP-friendly items.

The fact is, no one knows for sure what is going to happen and any supposed expert that claims otherwise is lying, but there's certainly enough pieces of information out there to allow you to cherrypick ones to fit your desired conclusion and south authoritative.

Let's take it by party, shall we?

Conservatives:

Big lead in the polls, they want to go now.

Mounting scandals, no way do they want to go.

Mounting scandals, they want to go before they can solidify and things get worse.

NDP-friendly budget leaks sign CPC wants to deal.

NDP-friendly budget leaks clever ruse to set the cat among the NDP canaries on budget eve, actual budget won't be palatable.

Liberals:

Well behind in the polls, why would they want to go now? It's a bluff.

Can't get ahead in polls pre-writ, may as well go now, it's not a bluff.

Mounting scandals make this the window, go now on ethics.

Mounting scandals will heighten if explored in committee, wait and drive down numbers.

NDP

Reasonable-sounding budget demands show they want to make parliament work, don't want election.

They don't expect demands to be met, just want to appear reasonable, they want an election.

They feel if they can get concessions their base will support them propping up government, they'll take what they get and call it victory.

They know their base won't accept them supporting the government, no way they will.

Listen to Jack Layton, no election.

Listen to Thomas Mulcair, election.

BQ

They're doing well in the polls, they want to go now.

They're doing well in the polls, they're cool with waiting until whenever.

No way would Harper ever buy off the separatists.

Meh, if it's good for Quebec...

For what it's worth, here's my uninformed two cents.

I think the Conservatives aren't as eager for an election as they may have been a few weeks ago, but they won't go out of their way to avoid one either. They'll toss a few goodies to the NDP, but they won't be major and won't meet all their demands. If the NDP bites, fine, and if they don't they're fine with going to the polls, they like their chances and the ethics things could get worse with time.

I think the Liberals have decided they have to get out of the cycle of propping these guys up and if that means an election, so be it. But they can't pretend to be an opposition anymore while regularly voting confidence. So they'll vote no (their budget demand of reversing corporate tax hikes will never be met) and take their chances. If the NDP props up the Cons, fine, they'll have as much fun with that as the NDP did when we were doing it, and keep hammering on ethics. And if it means an election, we'll finally be on an equal footing for the media cycle and ad spend and, as the saying goes, campaigns matter so anything can happen.

The BQ presented such a long and ridiculous list of budget demands it's hard to take seriously the prospect of them supporting the government on confidence. A deal on HST harmonization might give them pause, but if I were the Conservatives I'd rather have that as a promise to campaign on, rather than wait potentially a year and remind them of that billion-dollar payday. it's a big ticket item to give away when other suitors are cheaper dates. The BQ are in great position in the polls, with the potential for pick-ups, particularly in the Quebec City area. I think they vote no, but if HST money is actually in the budget (word tonight is that it's not) they may waver.

I think the NDP is more of a wildcard, because I don't think they know what they're going to do yet at this point. I think internally the party is torn. Look at polling and an election doesn't make much sense for them (nor does it for anyone, really) but certain incumbents are vulnerable. And Jack Layton is recovering from serious health issues; he's a gamer so he'll answer the bell but it's not ideal at all. I think there's a camp that wants to take what the Conservatives give and call it a making parliament work victory, whether it actually is or not (the Liberals demand and got billions in stimulus, didn't work out well for them and the NDP weren't impressed). Call them the pragmatists. And then there's the idealists, who couldn't stomach truck or trade with a Harper government they fundamentally and deeply dislike and disagree with on every level, and are adamantly opposed to supporting Harper no matter what the give.

I think at this point it's on the NDP, and I think at this point the jury is out. If I was forced to put money on it, I'd say they don't support the government, and we'll have an election. I've been surprised before, though. But to decide to prop them up, in the wake of the mounting ethical dramas, would be a bitter pill for their supporters to swallow. It would invalidate their years of messaging (they baked a cake to celebrate the Liberals propping up the Cons). And it wouldn't be a one-time thing. They'd either have to abstain or vote against the contempt findings, or explain why they're supporting a government they believe to be in contempt. Their attacks on any number of issues would ring hollow. It would mean eating a lot of crap sandwiches, for monts and months of budget implementation bills and who knows what other curve balls the Cons may throw. As a Liberal who has been there trust me, it really, really sucks. And I can't imagine doing it when, for the first time in Canadian history, not just one but two contempt findings are before the house. "Well sure, they're in contempt of the house and basic democratic principles, but we got some money for making homes more efficient, so..."

So, tonight I still believe we go this week, but not as strongly as I did yesterday. And I reserve the right to change my mind again tomorrow and believe the exact opposite. And with authority.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers