Reading the tea leaves

From tomorrow's calendar of media events, this will be interesting to observers of the Quebec scene:

QUEBEC _ Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff attends a Fete nationale event hosted by Quebec Premier Jean Charest. (11:45 a.m. at Musee des beaux-arts du Quebec, Parc des Champs-de-Bataille )

Meanwhile, on the comedy circuit:

VANCOUVER _ Senator Mike Duffy discusses the Conservative government's response to the global recession during the Fraser Institute's series, "Behind the Spin." (5:30 p.m. at VOYA Restaurant and Lounge, 1177 Melville Street)

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Knowing when to break a promise

In a political world where the agenda is often driven by the 24-hour news cycle, and where political parties have opposition research, war rooms and rapid response down to an art, politicians are ever more reluctant to go back on a promise, even a bad one. But the world would be so much better off if they did.

I’m thinking of the news today that Quebec Premier Jean Charest fully intends to go ahead with his campaign desperation promise of a tax cut. It was panned by people outside Quebec since Charest plans to fund it with increased money from the Feds intended to go to health and education, and by opponents within Quebec as crass political opportunism. Undeterred, Charest plans to keep his promise:

The income-tax cut will highlight the budget to be tabled today, with Mr. Charest arguing that the Liberal Party is the only one standing up for middle-class Quebeckers.

"As of tomorrow the real question will be: 'Who speaks for the middle class? Who defends the middle class in Quebec? Who will defend the tax cuts?' The Quebec Liberal Party will do it," Mr. Charest shot back as the PQ demanded that the money received from Ottawa in the last federal budget be invested in health and education.

Now, this tax cut just doesn’t make sense economically, and it certainly didn’t seem to help him much last election. So, why is he forging ahead with the cut, rather than making needed investments in health and education? I’d wager because he views the political cost of breaking his promise as higher than the political cost of making the cut and short-changing social investment.

It’s a common enough scenario in politics these days, with a number of examples springing to mind.

Out in BC in 2001 a then opposition leader Gordon Campbell campaigned on a large income tax cut, a la Mike Harris. When he got into office he found the fiscal picture wasn’t near as rosy as the outgoing NDP had led everyone to belief. He could have explained we couldn’t actually afford the tax cut, so sorry. Temporary hit, but points for maning-up and putting policy before politics. But, afraid of getting hit with the broken-promise refrain, he cut income tax anyway, a bit later jacking-up user fees, medical premiums and the sales tax to compensate for the lost revenue. It slowed down the province’s economic recovery but hey, he kept his election promise.

A tale that went the other way would be Dalton McGuinty in Ontario. He campaigned in 2003 on no new taxes, but found the books in worse shape once in office than the outgoing Tories had led people to believe. With a shortfall in the health budget to make up he could have slashed other needed social programs to make up the difference. Bad policy, but he could say he kept his promise. Instead, he opted to introduce a health premium, explaining to Ontarians why it was necessary to go back on his no new taxes promise. And while it was a story at the time, and still a favourite Tory talking-point, I think Ontarians by and large understood the necessity and have moved on, and perhaps even came to respect him a bit for making the right decision rather than the politically expedient one.

And the onus is really on us, as an electorate, to demand the kind of behaviour we want from out political leaders. If we recognize that breaking a promise isn’t necessarily bad then we’ll get politicians that make good, fact-based decisions. If we demonize any broken promise, no matter the circumstances, then we get rigid, conformist politicians that are afraid to make decisions they know are right.

So, I guess the point is it’s hard to blame Charest for wanting to push this tax cut through, but he still needs to man-up and do the right thing. And if he does cancel the cut everyone needs to resist draging-out the tired flip-flop, broken promise card, but rather give Jean kudos for making the right call.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Mandatory blog posting, Quebec election edition

I've only ever been over to Quebec a handful of times, usually for a sporting event. For example, five or so years back I went to see my BC Lions play the Allouetes at McGill Stadium. A few rows in front of me sat Gilles Duceppe himself, and the jeunes filles positively swooned over him. Much like that mystified me, so does Quebec politics.

So, I'll keep my obligatory post-Quebec election posting to aimless and uninformed speculation on the possible implications for the federal scene. Although, I'm not sure I can do it better than Feschuk has this morning, with this skewering of the pathetic post-poll panel punditry:

For instance, Charest’s humbling is bad for Harper, in that Harper personally invested so much in their relationship, but it’s also good for Harper in that the separatists were routed, even though that’s bad for Harper because Quebecers may ultimately confer a sympathy vote on the Bloc in a federal election to demonstrate that they’re not quite as opposed to sovereignty as it looked last night, which is actually good for Harper because he’ll have a separatist threat to play against and rally the federalist vote, exploiting Dion’s current weakness, which is actually bad for Harper because it will set Dion’s bar of expectations very low, allowing the Liberal leader to generate momentum this spring, which is good for Harper because spring is a warm and happy season that puts people in a good mood, which is bad for Harper because he hates people who are in a good mood, especially if they are gay, which is good for Harper because fitted T-shirts don't suit him anyway. Back to you, Lloyd.

I do find it difficult to accept the emerging conventional media and CPC wisdom that this is a victory for Harper, given the fact Charest was clearly his boy, Harper backed-up a Brinks truck of taxpayer dollars and dumped it into Quebec, and all he could buy his boy was a minority. That has to be a slap in the face for Steve. Still, given the conservatism of the ADQ spinning their surge as a positive signal for Harper is not without merit. Steve has never struck me as one for personal loyalty, indeed, he seems to have been cultivating Dumont, so it wouldn't be surprising to see Charest get the heave-ho and Dumont become Harper's new fair-haired boy.

Were I a Conservative though, or especially one of those moderate voters the Conservatives are desperately courting, I'd be leery about Steve and Mario getting into bed together. A concerning social conservative side of the ADQ emerged during this campaign, with a number of candidates dumped for troubling statements about women and minorities. Two groups Harper is investing heavily in wooing. Would it really be wise for Harper to hitch his wagon to a Quebec version of the early Reform Party?

They do, at least, have firmer common ground on a devolving vision of federalism, and provincial rights. The pressure will be on though, from both Charest and Dumont, for more. More powers, more money. How far will Harper be willing to go?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

SES on the budget, Quebec, Charest and Harper

As we await the details of the federal budget this afternoon (it's all the buzz down here in Salt Lake City, I assure you) I found this latest data from everyone's favourite pollsters interesting. SES says the budget isn't likely to help Jean Charest or Steve Harper all that much in Quebec, at least in the short term.

With much of the budget details well-leaked by the Conservatives ahead of time (barring no doubt a few surprises later today) SES polled Quebecers on how the leaked and expected budget iniatives would influence their opinions of Harper and Charest. Here's the numbers:

Question - As you know, Prime Minister Stephen Harper supports the concept of “open federalism”. The Harper government has announced $350 million to support Quebec’s environmental plan. Likewise, there is expected to be additional new equalization transfers from the government of Canada to the province of Quebec in the federal budget.

As a result are you likely to view Stephen Harper more favourably, about the same or less favourably?

All Quebecers (N=500)
More favourably - 27.0%
About the same - 33.5%
Less favourably - 36.6%
Unsure - 2.9%

As a result are you likely to view Jean Charest more favourably, about the same or less favourably?

All Quebecers (N=500)
More favourably - 20.9%
About the same - 38.0%
Less favourably - 37.8%
Unsure - 3.2%

Associate with Provincial Liberals (N=129)
More favourably - 48.0%
About the same - 29.8%
Less favourably - 18.9%
Unsure - 3.3%

And the analysis from SES president Nik Nanos:

The polling shows that Harper's open federalism, new money for Quebec's environmental plan and expected new equalization transfers for the province do not have a major positive impact on his image among Quebec voters. Indeed, Quebecers are more likely to look less favourably on the Prime Minister. The research does show that for Charest the budget will be good at firming up individuals who most closely personally associate with the Liberal Party of Quebec.

My sense is that for the federal Conservatives the budget strategy has a number of layers. First, the timing and likely budget configuration increases the likelihood for it to pass and thus further sustains the Harper government. Second, the federal Conservatives can wait and see what bump..if any...materializes from the budget.

For Charest, beyond Liberals, the traction of the budget and open federalism at this time is weak. This could be a result of the view that a number of Quebecers see the budget as a potential federal intervention in provincial politics.

Sounds like a fair analysis of the numbers to me. With the big cavet that something big and unexpected in the budget today could toss all this out the window, I'm not overly surprised Quebecers aren't buying into what Harper has been selling to them. Which has to be a sock in the gut, given the effort he has expended trying to build his, and Charest's, support in the province that could well make or break his majority dreams. Interesting the poll says the sales pitch is hurting him there though, I wonder what's behind that.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers