Coalition fear-mongering misses economic point

Share

Recently, there have been strenuous efforts by Conservative politicians to say the next election will force voters to choose between a Tory majority and a soft-on-separatism, big-on-socialism coalition. I have doubts that voters will see it that way.

In 2008, voters recoiled at the thought of a sudden change in government, scant weeks after an election, and the installation of Stéphane Dion as Prime Minister. It quickly became a toxic idea. As mad as people were with Stephen Harper for causing the crisis, they were more uncomfortable with the Dion-led coalition outcome.

But convincing folks that a vote for a Liberal Party candidate in the next election will recreate that scenario would require more than mountains of advertising dollars. Among other things, voters would need to believe that the Conservatives were spinning this yarn not out of any self-interest, but because of a genuine and legitimate concern about the impending breakup and bankruptcy of the Canada. It seems unlikely that skepticism about motives will be suspended to that extent.

Instead, the next election is shaping up as a classic fight between the Liberals and the Conservatives. There's little real evidence that the outcome will hang on so-called culture war issues, although they will have some influence. Voters on the right have generally been more animated than voters on the left in the last couple of decades, and issues like the gun registry and the long-form census will help the Conservatives get their base out to the polls. However, this effect may be counterbalanced by a rallying of those on the centre and left who worry that the Conservatives want a radical retrenchment of government, are decommissioning information inputs good government requires,and display a derisive attitude towards expert third parties.

But as topical as this idea of a culture war is, at the end of the day, fiscal and economic issues are more likely to be the main event.

Bill Curry's reporting that the Conservatives will go slowly when it comes to increasing EI premiums is a clear signal the Tories are anxious not to expose themselves to any more risk than they have already taken on, with a $50-billion deficit and ugly spending anecdotes from the G20 meetings. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's decision to tread lightly is sound politics, but not only because it avoids the ire of businesses and workers. It also shows that pragmatism is alive and well in cabinet - and that outside pressures and perspectives can influence what this government does.

For his part, Michael Ignatieff is also focusing on making sure his fiscal instincts are on display and is at pains to illustrate that he would be a cautious fiscal steward. His reversal of position on EI changes is soundly argued (times change, we need affordable policy) and covers an exposed flank. To win an election in this climate, the Liberals need to raise doubts about the fiscal and economic management of the Conservatives, and restore confidence that they are a party that can be trusted to manage our economy with care.

With about five months to go before the next federal budget, the stakes around these choices are getting higher. If both parties read the Canadian mood right, the battle will not pit big spending against radical cutting, but feature a vigorous competition of economic and fiscal choices closer to the centre of the policy spectrum.