Monday, May 01, 2006

Good Government Or Popularity Contest?

Are the Conservatives running a government, or auditioning for Canadian Idol:
Party and government insiders agree the next biggie will be a clean air act.

Environmental action is seen as something that will be well received in green-friendly Quebec.

Increased support there could put the party over the top to a majority government in the next election.

A clean air act is also something the NDP has indicated it would support.

"It's all about chewable chunks," said a Conservative source.

The Conservatives hope a broad environmental agenda in the fall -- combined with competent management of government -- can provide the electoral buzzwords they need to move from minority to majority government.

"Good government is a seller at the ballot box," said one insider.

So, the Tories will offer environmental initiatives, not because we desperately need action for our very survival, but because it might help make the government more popular with voters, particularly those high-priority Quebecers. The budget will include a litany of taxbreaks, primarily because taxcuts are an electoral windfall. With every move, the government openly discusses how best to achieve its only principle- a future majority. Is this approach a recipe for good government or manipulation of the issues for personal self-interest?

It is clear that Harper's government has no foresight beyond the next election. Fiscal concerns are muted, for the short-term gain of taxcuts. The Liberals, love them or hate them, always approached budget considerations with a long-term philosophy in mind. Pay down the debt, use conservative estimates and always plan for the future. The Conservatives are now prepared to squander the entire surplus for the sole purpose of popularity. Good government is about the well being of the people, not the fortunes of a political party. Smog should be tackled because it is a health threat, not because focus groups show it helps with a key demographic. Is this a government or a cynical marketing campaign?

I take great offense at statements like "good government is a seller at the ballot box". This philosophy, or lack thereof, implies that the government won't consider any measure which is potentially unpopular. There are times when a government must show the courage to make decisions that don't have immediate gratification or risk alienating segments of the population. In my mind, good government is one with a direction, based on a value set. What has become painfully obvious, is that we now have a government that has no soul, merely a collage of policies with power at the core. At the root of every idea, a calculation of the power quotient. Should we do A? Yes or no, depending on how A resonates with soft Bloc supporters. Not, lets do A because it is a pressing issue which is our moral duty. This government is a sham, a low-water mark for Canadian politics. The sad part, the Conservatives are well on their way to their goal, unless someone can articulate the blatant motivations.

12 comments:

Scotian said...

Really good post Steve, depressing but still really apt for it. This is where I miss the old PCPC, they like the Liberals and NDP have/had some overall long term vision for Canada they were working towards and they did so openly. The Libs though in the last go-round went from being deficit builders to destroyers and added real fiscal discipline (yes with some fairly harsh negative consequences, however I have always maintained better the Libs or indeed any Canadian rather than the IMF, under their restructuring I doubt we would have ANY social programs left instead of weakened and overstressed but still there to reinvest in) to the federal government yet still with long term goals they told the public about.

Beyond governing to gain a majority government I really do not KNOW where this government wants to take the direction of the county. I know where Reform and the CA did, I know where the 2004 CPC did, but this CPC government was elected with a stealth campaign that ran a morals campaign against an old and tired government with a serious corruption scandal from its past being painfully examined in the public view and has since hidden the election campaign platform now that they are elected. This is a stealth party using the politics of expediency with a rich pot of cash thanks to the good management of their predecessors (not that they will give them any credit for it, nor their partisans) to do so with. I always figured part of the Fortier appointment was to rebuild the old Conservative networks in Quebec by favours, contracts, and other incentives traditional in our politics. It is easier to hide from public attention too when the unelected Minister is appointed to the Senate so as to claim a veneer of accountability instead of having to arrange something for someone not in either Chamber which might get more public/media attention like QP in the House and unlike the Senate.

This is a party with an agenda, but exactly what is that agenda in the long term? Where specifically do they wish to take the country? These are questions they got away with ducking thanks to the stealth campaign they ran AND the ineptitudes of the Liberal campaign disaster. Now they want to be able to get that majority by buying off the interests they figure they can get to with the resources of the federal government (I include the Softwood deal in this, it was a sellout to look like he got something when as far as I can tell he sold out the long term interests of Canada by a wide margin) and without having to explain this. Good government is not a campaign slogan or an election strategy, it is literally a principle this nation was founded upon, and one this country's history has treated and taken seriously. He is trying to manage this government the same way as the last campaign without revealing the answers to the aforementioned questions for the long term.

The real question though is it they have no long-term agenda or is it that they do have one that they know would cost them that majority if it were publicly known? I think this is something we cannot afford to lose sight of, and the more this government looks like it does things for one reason only, majority government, then the hidden agenda question regains potency as a serious concern. I do think that we are seeing expediency before all else, look at some of the partisan shots about the inactions an ineffectualities of prior governments on the Air India file when he announced the Judicial Inquiry despite most of the worst of them from the Conservative PM Brian Mulroney. Afghanistan was another in that vein, something that should have been non-partisan being made partisan by the PM. The question is is this expediency for the sake of expediency, or is this expediency for the sake of some larger/wider goal? For that matter which one of the two would you say is the more dangerous, those with no agenda beyond their self gratifications or those with a clear agenda that they know will not sit well with the majority of the country and therefore are hiding it?

Steve V said...

scotian

You make a good point about the ultimate plan. The short-term goal is attain the relative absolute power of a majority. Once there, I suspect we will see an actual philosophy, the social one Canadians largely reject. Everyone should be suspicious of a government who fixates on unchecked power. I think this obsession tells us the "hidden agenda" is real.

People forget that when the Liberals took power a staggering 20% of all tax revenue was wasted on paying the interest for the massive debt. The Liberals were vilified for hoarding surpluses, but their policies are now giving this government a great deal of flexibility. Martin may have been a failure as PM, but there is no question he will go down as one of the most sucessful Finance Minister's in Canadian history. The bad news, the Tories now reap the rewards of sound fiscal management and can buy votes with the goodies.

Anonymous said...

How much do we now pay on interest for the National Debt?

I heard we pay $35 billion per year on a national debt which is close to 1/2 trillion dollars.

Does anyone have the actual figures?

Anonymous said...

I found a more current figure - we paid $48.738 billion for debt charges federally in 2003.

Not sure what percentage of revenues that is.

Anonymous said...

Soooo, if I'm reading this right, the Conservatives are up in the polls right now because Canadians are warming to their policy, therefor they must be hiding something and are only making people happy to gain power. The shortcoming there is that we have elections to boot people who operate like this, as the Chretienites so succesfully orchestrated Martin to take the fall for.

Give it a chance, it's different and the last batch couldn't make everyone happy, if it doesn't work, we vote em' out and give the wheel to the next best choice. That's just how democracy works.

Hey I'm a Conservative, but even I don't agree with everything they bring in, but I also know a couple months is no length of time to be judging a party on.

Good post though...

Anonymous said...

Steve

Though I am no fan of the CPC it's a bit rich to hold the Liberals up as a paragon on virtue when discussing hidden agendas. If I recall correctly, the Big Red Machine received several mandates over that last decade or so. Though they made many promises (some kept, other broken), I don't believe that any of their election platforms mentioned anything about supporting the ideas of The Task Force on the Future of North America, namely Deep Integration. Though not "officially endorsed" by the Liberal Party, many top Liberals are firm supporters of the Task Force and their proposals to surrender the sovereignty of Canada and it citizenry.

If concluding that because many members of the CPC support Social Conservatism, that Social Conservatism is part of the CPC's "hidden agenda", then the same logic may applied to the LPC and Deep Integration.

Steve V said...

dale

I'm not sure where I held the Liberals up as a "paragon of virtue", but to say the Conservatives and Liberals are the same as far as "hidden agendas" is complete bunk. The Liberals were in power for 13 years, I think we all have a good handle of their agenda, or lack thereof as was the case in the last few years. Dale, it is easy to be an NDP supporter, you can always claim ideological purity because you never have to do anything. Only when Bob Rae actually took the helm did we see that the NDP had warts too. Don't let your hatred for the Liberal Party blind you too what this government is all about- it is an entirely different animal alltogether.

Anonymous said...

Steve

I'm not an NDP supporter. I've voted for versions of all 3 main parties (and Green) as well.

My point is that I'm pretty sure that a huge majority of Canadian voters know that the CPC has a lot of Social Conservatives. I would be surprised if many voters are aware of Deep Integration at all or the level of support it has in the LPC. In my mind it seems that the Deep Integration agenda has been "hidden" by the LPC much more effectively than Social Conservatism has been by the CPC.

I would also argue that Deep Integration threatens Canadian sovereignty, security and society far more than Social Conservatism. Any regressive social policies that the CPC introduce can be resisted and overturned via civil disobedience. Extricating our nation from bilateral agreements that turn over effective control of our economy, regulatory powers and natural wealth to the most powerful country on the planet may be slightly more difficult.

(That being said, I'm quite certain that there are many supporters of Deep Integration in the CPC as well. However, that is a Party that wears its "admiration" for our continental neighbours proudly on their sleeves. Another CPC agenda that isn't that well "hidden".)

Steve V said...

dale

I'm looking forward with the Liberal Party. I think there is a real opportunity for reform that breaks away from the old boys network. The problem with continually bashing the Liberals is it has the same effect as the Naderites with the American Democrats. Does anyone still believe there is no difference between Gore and Bush?

Anonymous said...

Steve

I'm not saying that the Liberals and Conservatives are the same. I was merely pointing out that trying to generate fear of the Conservatives to lobby for Liberal support is a poor tactic and in the case of "hidden agendas", is hypocricy.

The fact that you're making the "nobody but the Liberals can keep the Conservatives from getting a majority" argument speaks less to the fact that the Liberals are deserving of support and more to the fact that our electoral system produces results that noone is happy with.

If the goal is to elect a government that truly represents the will of the Canadian electorate, then electoral reform is what is needed, not "the lesser of two evils". Following on from that assumption, the best Party to lend support to (at least in the short term) would be the NDP. Having been relegated to the fringe for so long, they may be the only Party to realise how fleeting their power is and change the system to be more equitable (preparing for when they get drummed out of office).

Steve V said...

dale

proportional representation?

Anonymous said...

That seems to be the most likely option.

(However, I do recall the old Reform Party pushing for citizens initiatives, plebescites and referendums to be used to govern. Though I wouldn't recommend that unless you want to spend as much time voting as you do blogging.)