Sunday, February 19, 2006
For example he notes: Lost in all the sturm und drang surrounding Harper's cabinet choices — and in particular those of Liberal turncoat David Emerson and the unelected Michael Fortier — was the appointment of five ministers in key portfolios, all of whom have impeccable right-wing credentials.
However, the one thing most likely to undermine them is not discussed. This government was elected at the height of a recovery. The impact of recession on them politically, hard enough on any government, would be devastating.
And this outfit still has the illusion that Mike Harris and his tax-cutting, privatization and deregulation agenda produced prosperity for Ontario in the late nineties. They are wilfully oblivious to the impact of American growth, in part because it came about under Bill Clinton, and followed a tax hiking budget on his part in 1993, which, if it did not create the recovery (there is debate about this), at least did not prevent it. At the time the Republicans predicted economic disaster as a consequence of tax increases.
The one lasting impact of the Harris agenda is a tax regime in Canada that makes it difficult to fund social programs. Thus we have infrastructure, education and other social deficits, that it will be difficult for an ideologically hamstrung government like Harper’s to do anything about.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Consider this CBC story about newly minted Conservative cabinet minister Michael Fortier, and this blog post about former MP John Reynolds, and you have to conclude that this new bunch are really the not-ready-for-prime-time-players of 2006.
The Reynolds connection has further down the road significance. His former riding of West Vancouver elected a Liberal but by a narrow margin over the Conservative candidate. My bet: this is where David Emerson will run next time, since he can say goodbye to Vancouver Kingsway.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
The key point in her column is this one:
If the Liberals are to quickly grow out of opposition, they too will have to avoid sticking their heads in the sand of wishful thinking. They will, for instance, have to ask themselves whether they can continue to promote a vision of Canada that has no traction in francophone Quebec and in the West and is losing ground even in their Ontario heartland.
Trudeau gave the party, among other things, a commitment to the idea of strong central government and this, along with his constitutional deal in 1981, has arguably cost the Liberals the support of francophone Quebec. The Liberals dominated Quebec from 1917 to 1984, with the single exception of 1958, but have performed poorly there ever since (in 2000 the party won a plurality of the Quebec popular vote but finished second by a substantial margin among francophones). Liberals have not yet squarely faced this fact. Now that they have a federalist opponent that has achieved a taste of success on the ground in Quebec, they continue to ignore the problem at their peril.
Even if, as I suspect, many Liberals do not wish to question their devotion to a strong central government, present circumstances suggest that they can no longer ignore the issue. It ought to be a central feature of the party’s debate in the coming year.
The issue deserves to be debated and thought through as well by the NDP, which has traditionally supported, with some exceptions, a strong central government. (Some western party members have been more sympathetic to a provincial autonomist perspective.) This would be a good year for the party to debate these issues, given that its annual meeting will be held in Quebec City in September.
The Liberal Party made the idea of bilingualism a core Canadian political value. The Conservatives, after resisting bilingualism for years (indeed the Conservative Scott Reid was reprimanded during the 2004 election on the issue), have now accepted it and integrated it into their world view. However, Quebec since the 1950’s has aspired to greater provincial autonomy. The Conservatives are now gaining ground in Quebec by promoting a devolutionist view of the federation. The Liberals under Pearson accepted in part Quebec’s aspirations for greater autonomy. (The deal that led to the creation of the Canada Pension Plan is an example of this.) But they strongly reversed themselves under Trudeau. If Harper can be successful in Quebec, and in particular, if he can reduce support for Quebec independence with his agenda, the Liberal Party may have to take a hard look at one of its articles of faith.