| Advertisement |
|
Local Guides
|
|
|
ON ICE: WHERE’S THE COALITION?
|
by
Sarah Veale
FEBRUARY 12-18,2009 |
|
It’s official. With the Liberals’ support of the Conservative budget, there is finally an end to the backroom maneuvering and heated rhetoric that hasn’t been seen in Ottawa since… well, since Stephen Harper pulled the rug out from under Paul Martin with a well–timed confidence vote in 2005.
Call it political chicken, but the PM rode out the coalition threat like a cowboy set for the stampede, leaving Stéphane Dion, with his grainy videotape and broken English, to play the part of rodeo clown. Guess there is some benefit to being from Alberta — Harper remains in charge of the Hill, Michael Ignatieff sits tight in the number two slot as interim opposition leader, and the coalition is now just a dirty memory from a particularly messy session of Parliament. Sorry Jack Layton, the Liberals just aren’t that into you.
Ignatieff’s conclusion about the Conservative budget, which promises $40 billion in stimulus for the Canadian economy, was that it fell short on many measures (employment insurance eligibility and conditional infrastructure spending, for starters). But it also wasn’t a total wash. The Finance Minister’s plan, he conceded, was taking important steps to create more affordable housing and provide skills training to jettisoned workers. With premiers like Gordon Campbell and Dalton McGuinty pushing for the promised funds, the Liberal leader had little choice but to back the Tory budget.
“We are putting this government on probation,” Ignatieff told reporters after announcing his decision to support the budget with conditions. Instead of pulling the plug, Ignatieff will require the government to furnish periodic status reports which indicate marked progress on key issues such as unemployment and job creation. “If it fails to meet those targets,” Ignatieff said, “this government will not survive long.”
You could say the same for the opposition’s coalition plans, which barely survived the passing of the Liberal leadership torch. “Ultimately, Stephen Harper’s gamble of proroguing Parliament as a way of staying in power has paid off for him,” says Peter Graefe, an expert in Canadian Politics at McMaster University. “So his government won’t lose confidence of the House, at least for a few more months.”
Looking back to December, it’s easy to see why the coalition didn’t stand a chance. Unclear about the parliamentary process, Canadians spent more time debating the legality of a coalition government than examining what either proposed government had to offer. (For the record, coalition governments are not just legal, they are a perfectly common function of parliamentary democracies.)
Not that the opposition put forward any clear ideas. They talked stimulus, but what kind of stimulus? They had a plan to govern, but not much more beyond how the cabinet seats would be divvied up. Lacking a concrete agenda beyond wresting power from the Conservatives, the coalition became a rag–tag alliance bustling with energy, but low on actual sustenance. “They had no real strong messages that they were investing in people or they were investing to support the weakest or they were going to keep Canada strong in the face of this recession by investing in specific things,” Graefe says. “I can understand why Canadians weren’t wowed by that.”
They also weren’t wowed by Stephane Dion, a problem many feel was rectified by putting Ignatieff in charge and renewed coalition speculation amongst those who saw Ignatieff as a game–changer. “Compared to Dion, [Ignatieff] definitely comes across a lot more decisive,” says Dan Arnold, a Liberal supporter who blogs as the Calgary Grit. “People see him as someone who could be Prime Minister… he has that kind of aura about him. Whereas Dion, probably people thought was a nice guy, but was a bit of a dweeb.”
While an Iggy coalition might appeal to those eager to give Harper the boot, the Liberals have plenty of reasons for permanently ditching the half–baked plan.
“It’s still a deterrent, but nobody, at least the Liberals, don’t really want to put it into play,” Arnold says. “Ignatieff is just taking over, I’m not sure if it’s necessarily how he wants to start right away his time as leader.”
The coalition, simply put, was Stéphane Dion’s project. After facing a miserable electoral defeat in October (not to mention a divided caucus), his shotgun assembly of opposition parties was the only way he’d ever ascend to Prime Minister. By contrast, Ignatieff has options. A Nanos poll taken in early January places the Liberals in a statistical tie with the Conservatives — a comfy position to go into an election with. With competitive approval ratings like that, the Grits can sit back, enjoy a relatively united leadership convention, restock the coffers, and develop an agenda before making a move on the government.
Not that it’s all tea parties and cake in the Grit caucus since Iggy’s arrival: he’s been criticized as an outsider whose Harvard pedigree confers an uncanny sense of entitlement. After gaining his parliamentary seat in 2006, Ignatieff immediately positioned himself as a front–runner for the Liberal leadership. Even Belinda Stronach, queen of big name outsider politics, would blush at Ignatieff’s boldness; especially considering Ignatieff, a former university professor, spent the previous 27 years abroad.
“Michael Ignatieff does has issues in terms of being seen as kind of distant and pompous, maybe having a bit of an authoritarian streak, being out of touch with Canadians having come from away quite recently, and not being of a particular populist background,” Graefe says. “On the other hand, he’s helped by the fact that he’s running against Stephen Harper, who’s not particularly well–loved.”
Putting the coalition on ice not only serves to warm the public up to Ignatieff, it also gives Harper enough rope with which to hang his government, now on its third year of minority rule. The longer Harper remains in charge, the longer the recession ticks on his watch; all the more reason for Harper to put aside his partisan poison pills and get Parliament back on track. Though the Liberals may be bluffing their way through a coalition threat, a bigger scythe looms over the Tory caucus: that of an election.
“I don’t think Stephen Harper really wants to fight an election in the middle of a recession,” Arnold says. “I’m sure he’d rather try to ride things out for a year and hope that things start to pick up a year from now and that he could take credit for turning things around.”
It’s a big change in strategy for the Conservatives, who got a cold wake–up call to the fact that, in a minority government, the numbers are against them. If Harper wants to hold on to power, he’ll have to bend, even if modestly, to Liberal demands.
“Everybody got hurt by what happened in December to a certain extent. Nobody really came across looking good,” Arnold says, pointing out the costs of political brinksmanship. “It’s in the best interest of everybody to look like they’re working together. That is what voters want.”
Though there may not be a coalition in sight, the upside of the past two months is that now Canadians may not need one. With all the major parties spooked into acting responsibly, even with the status quo there might be change in Ottawa after all. V
[SARAH VEALE]
|
Share on
 |
No comments yet... be the first! |
|
