Election 2010?

[Kirkhill]

I couldn't quite make up my mind whether the emphasis should be on "old" or "consensus".  Is he perturbed that there is "no consensus" or worse, in his eyes, that there might be a "new" consensus.

What really caught my interest in that article is that after years of declaring the "old consensus" and its advocates as being "moderate" and "mainstream" he now is explicitly acknowledging the old model as "leftist" and "statist" and being promoted by the media generally and Macleans and the CBC in particular.

I still have vivid recollections of a CBC documentary of the 2006 election (???) where Lawrence and two other pundits with other media were discussing Harper's response to some staffer calling Paul Martin's Liberals pedophiles or some such.  Harper came out and slammed the comment.  The other two seemed to think that was the end of the matter but Martin said something to the effect "how can we present that?"  causing me to infer that he was actively trying to spin up the outrage against Harper and, in the process, convinced the other two pundits to come on board with his line.  That resulted in Harper being held to a minority.  (I remember the documentary but am foggy on the details - I have tried to find it since on CBC but without success - It was about the media and the way they followed the campaign).

 

[a_majoor]

It would seem the LPC can use a prolonged "breather". No election until 2011:

http://uknowiamright.blogspot.com/2009/11/climbing-up-just-to-reach-rock-bottom.html

Climbing up just to reach rock bottom

That;s the latest predicament the Liberals find themselves in as the latest Angus-reid polls shows the Liberals behind the Tories by 15 pts:

CPC: 38%
LPC 23%
NDP: 17%
BQ: 11%
GPC: 10%

While I take issue with any poll that shows the Greens at 10% & shows the Tories at only 19% in Quebec, the general trend of the Grits sliding even further behind the Tories is continuing as it is in other polls

This can break two ways; the LPC tries another "Dear Leader" or two (Bob Rae and the Young Dauphin?) and devolves into irrelevance with the left wing of the party breaking to the NDP and Greens;

or,

They pull their heads out of their collective a***s, purge the old guard who are entitled to their entitlements and really sit down and define themselves for a new century.

They may have enough time and resiliance to survive one more "Dear Leader" if they isolate him/her/it and work frantically in the background to reorganize and rebuild (after a failed election they will hold a leadership review and eliminate the "Dear Leader"), but after that, the combination of internal divisions and frustration and external events like the continuing demographic and economic shifts in Canada will make recovery very unlikely.

Many political parties with long and established roots have rapidly disintigrated in Canada, the United States and the UK, so it's not like this is a historical surprize...

 

[ModlrMike]

Many political parties with long and established roots have rapidly disintigrated in Canada, the United States and the UK, so it's not like this is a historical surprize...

One might argue that the Conservatives having already re-invented themselves already, are ahead of the curve in this scenario. Perhaps that can account for some of their current popularity. On the other hand, it may be that the Liberals are so bad that many "small l" liberals can't bring themselves to support them.

 

[SeanNewman]

Yes the Conservatives have reinvented themselves already.  Maclean's did a good cover on it last year called "The death of Canada's Right" (or something along those lines).

Instead of having a (by our standards) Left (NDP), Centre (Liberal), and Right (Con), what we now have is a Left and 2 x Centres.

Great for votes, bad for balance.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Based on the old adage that ”if you haven’t heard a good rumour by coffee break: start one” this is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-buzzing-with-talk-of-proroguing-parliament/article1400284/

Ottawa buzzing with talk of proroguing Parliament
Tories said to be considering shutting down government until after the Olympics
Gloria Galloway

Ottawa

Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2009

Rumours swirling around Ottawa suggest the Conservative government is thinking of shutting down Parliament until after the Olympics, killing some of its own bills but also ending the discussion of Afghan detainees that is nibbling away at Tory popularity.
“I have heard that from some of the public servants,” Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale said Monday of a potential prorogation. “The word they are getting is ‘get ready to clear the decks. Anything that needs to get done before a parliamentary session ends, get it done.' ”

Conservative staff members said they also have received hints that a prorogation may be in the offing. But a spokeswoman for Government House Leader Jay Hill said his office “won't indulge the Hill rumour mill.”

The rumours suggest that Parliament would return in March, when the Games are over, with a new budget that could be used to provoke an election.

Majority governments normally prorogue after a couple of years in office as a way of recalibrating.

But minorities, like the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, may decide to end Parliament after a shorter period. Mr. Harper asked that Parliament be prorogued a year ago, soon after winning his second minority government, to avoid being defeated by an opposition coalition.

The House of Commons has already started its annual Christmas break, effectively ending the daily grilling of the government about the possible torture of Afghan detainees who had been turned over to Afghan officials by the Canadian military. MPs are not due to return to Ottawa until the end of January.

But opposition members of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan have asked to hold special meetings before the session resumes. Among other high-profile witnesses, they want Defence Minister Peter MacKay and his predecessor, Gordon O'Connor, to return for more interrogation about what they knew of the torture allegations. The committee could not sit during prorogation.

A poll by Angus Reid released Monday suggests that, since mid-November when the detainees story became front-page news, Conservative popularity has taken a hit. Across the country, the survey said, the Tories fell by 2 per cent, to 36 per cent of decided voters, while the Liberals climbed by 6 per cent, to 29 per cent of decided voters.

Mr. Goodale said changing the channel on Afghanistan would be a good reason for the Conservatives to prorogue. “They've obviously taken a real drubbing on that issue,” he said.

Ending Parliament would also give Conservative cabinet ministers the chance to attend the Olympic Games and to get positive publicity by appearing at medals ceremonies, Mr. Goodale said.

And it would help Mr. Harper take control of the Senate.

The Prime Minister has promised to fill the five Senate seats that become available on Jan. 2. But, the makeup of Senate committees changes only when parliamentary sessions end. So, even with the new appointments, the Liberal-dominated committees that have recently amended government bills – to the consternation of Conservative cabinet ministers – would remain exactly as they were a year ago unless there is a prorogation.

Libby Davies, the NDP House Leader, said she had not heard the rumours that the parliamentary session could be ended.

“I can't imagine what reason they would have to prorogue the House,” she said, “especially when it's the Conservatives who make such a big deal of their legislation and their crime agenda and things being held up.”

Bills that have not received Royal Assent die when Parliament is prorogued. That means legislation, including the consumer protection act that the Conservatives have urged the Senate to pass without amendments, would have to be reintroduced in the new session.

The most critical piece of legislation before the Senate is the bill that enriches the Employment Insurance program. The New Democrats averted an election this fall by allowing it to pass in the House of Commons. The Senate will sit again Tuesday and the bill could pass before senators leave for their own Christmas break.

With a report from Bill Curry

There are some good political and policy reasons to proroguing parliament for the winter:

1. Finish stacking the Senate to ensure that Conservative legislation can move through, unamended;

2. Rewrite the economic agenda and present it in a new budget – it’s probably time;

3. Get the Conservative Party on an election footing – do what is necessary to push Conservative support up and Liberal support down;

4. After the budget passes, introduce a bill that will be so toxic to all three opposition parties that none can afford to do anything except show up, en masse, and vote down the government – provoking a general election in 2010, when the numbers are good.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Donolo's only weapon in his bag of dirty tricks will be "Steven Harper: the big, bad, ugly." I think the Canadian public is tired of that tack and the comparisons to GW Bush that go with it. I agree though, that this can go badly for the Conservatives if they fail to take notice of it and make plans accordingly.

It appears you are quite right.

Jane Taber's most recent Ottawa Notebook blog on the Glone and Mail we site talks a about a Liberal photo contest that offered prizes and asked supporters "to have some fun by putting the Prime Minister anywhere but in Copenhagen: “Your mission, should you accept it, is to pick an image that will haunt Stephen Harper forever,” the Liberal Party website says."

This was the result:

Taber says, "a senior Liberal official said the picture had been taken down. “That one slipped by and should not have been posted,” he said."

A senior Tory, she notes, said, "the Conservatives “won’t dignify this with a response.” He added: “Mr. Ignatieff should comment, not us, as this incident reflects on Mr. Ignatieff’s judgment.”"

 

[Rifleman62]

Lets hope that some kid did not get a hold of that picture and takes it to school to bully one of the PM's children.

Jane Taber and the Liberals. are they out of their minds???

The LPC and the media are out of control.

The two cheapest words in the English language: 'Sorry" and "Love'.

 

[a_majoor]

Donolo's only weapon in his bag of dirty tricks will be "Steven Harper: the big, bad, ugly." I think the Canadian public is tired of that tack and the comparisons to GW Bush that go with it. I agree though, that this can go badly for the Conservatives if they fail to take notice of it and make plans accordingly.

The CPC learned this one quite well, actually, since they have lifted the attack mentality from the Liberal playbook against Stockwell Day and have replayed it at huge levels of amplification against Stephan Dion and Micheal Ignatieff.

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

 

[ModlrMike]

The CPC learned this one quite well, actually, since they have lifted the attack mentality from the Liberal playbook against Stockwell Day and have replayed it at huge levels of amplification against Stephan Dion and Micheal Ignatieff.

To which the Liberals responded by wailing about dirty tricks, attack ads, etc, etc, etc. In my view, it's hardly your opponent's fault if they have better command of your tactics than you have.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Based on the old adage that ”if you haven’t heard a good rumour by coffee break: start one” this is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-buzzing-with-talk-of-proroguing-parliament/article1400284/

There are some good political and policy reasons to proroguing parliament for the winter:

1. Finish stacking the Senate to ensure that Conservative legislation can move through, unamended;

2. Rewrite the economic agenda and present it in a new budget – it’s probably time;

3. Get the Conservative Party on an election footing – do what is necessary to push Conservative support up and Liberal support down;

4. After the budget passes, introduce a bill that will be so toxic to all three opposition parties that none can afford to do anything except show up, en masse, and vote down the government – provoking a general election in 2010, when the numbers are good.

More fuel for the prorogation fire, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=fae7ba06-7294-494d-a9e8-58c9749d358d&p=1

Last Senate stand bizarre spectacle
Proroguing Parliament again an option for Harper

John Ivison, National Post

Wednesday, December 16, 2009


Senators are considering a proposal to televise their daily deliberations to give Canadians a better sense of what they do.

This should be considered good news by those who want to abolish the Senate. The cure for anyone who thinks this is the Chamber of sober second thought is to go and watch it.

Honourable senators were gathered yesterday to debate the government's consumer-product safety bill, which has already received unanimous consent in the House of Commons. The bill would give Ottawa mandatory recall powers and require companies to alert Health Canada of any serious incidents involving their products. At the moment, it is up to companies whether they initiate a voluntary product recall.

It should be a shoo-in. The legislation would bring Canada into line with the United States and the European Union, and it is backed by the Canadian Medical Association, the Standards Council of Canada, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs and a host of other bodies who are upset at the prospect of children being hospitalized by toxic paint or faulty cribs.

The only people who seem to be opposed to the bill are the 45 Liberal senators who voted for a series of amendments yesterday that will send the legislation back to the House of Commons. They appear to have bought the line peddled by a lobby group called the Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom, which says the bill gives government inspectors too much power over businesses.

The main lobbyist of this group, a man called Trueman Tuck, was recently quoted in a story by my colleague Sarah Schmidt as blaming "big pharma" for "a genocide far greater than any genocide in recorded history," a statement he was generous enough to admit sounded "bizarre."

Still, it was no more bizarre than some of the contributions to the debate yesterday from the Liberal benches. Senator Mobina Jaffer invoked the situation in the 1970s in her native Uganda under Idi Amin, where a local mayor was killed and his genitals cut off. Her point, apparently, was that if the government compels companies to tell them when its products suffocate children, we'll soon be living under a dictator who awards himself the Victoria Cross and claims to be the Last King of Scotland.

One amendment voted on yesterday claimed that the new bill would allow Health Canada inspectors to barge into private dwellings at a moment's notice, despite government assurances that it would apply only to those that manufacture, import, advertise or sell consumer products.

One suspects the real reason the Liberal senators opposed an apparently benign product safety bill is because they still could. They have a working majority in the 105-seat Senate, but that numerical supremacy is set to be whittled down by the retirement of two Grit senators and the imminent appointment of five Conservatives to fill existing vacancies.

This was the last hurrah of a parliamentary institution that is used to charting its own course, regardless of what the leader of the Liberal caucus desires. Marjory LeBreton, Government Leader in the Senate, compared the performance to Custer's Last Stand, and there's no doubt that the Liberal senators were prepared to die with their boots on.

The upshot will not disappoint the Conservatives unduly, allowing them once more to claim that their agenda is being derailed by the unelected Liberal Senate. One option is to allow the product safety bill to once more wend its way through the Commons, by which time they will have the votes in the Senate to pass it into law.

But the government may have another course of action in mind -- prorogation of Parliament. Although the Conservatives will soon have a virtual majority in the Senate (the issue is complicated by five independent senators), the Liberals will continue to dominate all committees, including the steering committee that sets the Senate timetable. This is important to the Harper government because it means that Liberal senators will still be able to hold up legislation in committee, even if the government will ultimately be able to drive through its agenda once legislation is returned to the Chamber. By proroguing Parliament, the Conservatives will be able to reconstitute all committees and control the Senate for the first time since forming government.

If that is the Prime Minister's preferred course of action, it will be interesting to see whether he retains his zeal for reforming the Senate once he becomes its master.

As I said, prorogation makes good political and policy sense.

A guesstimate is that Harper will delay the announcement until just before parliament is scheduled to return in late Jan 10. That is based on the fact that the Conservatives have found a way to derail the detainee issue by, simply, boycotting the committee, effectively shutting it down.

But it might be better, from a machinery of government point of view to do the deed sooner, rather than later and letting selected ministers and bureaucrats get on, formally, with developing a new agenda.

 

[GAP]

Mark April 13th in your new 2010 calendar as election day
Friday, January 1, 2010 9:04 AM
Article Link

Here’s why you’ll be going to the polls on that tuesday

    * It will have been almost 18 months to the day since the last federal election, about the average life of a minority government. With Mr. Harper slated to host the G8 and G20 meetings in June, he has a narrow window to get an election out of the way before the delegates arrive.
    * Notwithstanding the continued strength of the Bloc in Québec, Mr. Harper is now within shooting distance of achieving a majority government, a goal sought by all (and all potential) prime ministers.
    * Based on the latest Nanos poll, Michael Ignatieff — Mr. Harper’s only potential replacement — has fallen below Jack Layton in the eyes of Canadians on the issue of leadership, and Mr. Harper runs little risk of not being in the chair for the G8 and G20 meetings after a spring election.
    * If Mr. Harper’s decision to prorogue Parliament was designed to thwart further investigation into the Afghan detainees issue (why else would he have done the dirty deed?), he will be looking to ensure from the get-go that the opposition parties don’t pick up where they left off as soon as the new session begins. A quick election call would neatly do the trick, especially given Canadians’ apparently lukewarm interest in the issue.
    * The Throne Speech will be read by the Governor-General on Wednesday March 3rd and the budget will be tabled by finance minister Flaherty the next day; both will situate Canada on the path to gradual economic recovery and stress the need for a firm hand on the tiller, and on the till. With these documents on the public record, Mr. Harper could then cross the street to Rideau Hall to request a vote on Tuesday April 12th, explaining to voters that Canada needs a single set of safe hands on the wheel (namely, his!) to deal with the next phase of the economic recovery through gradual expenditure restraint and no tax increases.

Here’s why Mr. harper won’t wait until the fall to call an election

    * Several polls have indicated that Canadians are increasingly uncomfortable with the shenanigans in Ottawa during minority government situations. However, whether the election is in the spring or the fall, the big unknown remains whether that sentiment can survive a five-week campaign during which voters are staring the prospect of a Harper majority government directly in the face.
    * Waiting until the fall to call an election would allow economic concerns — Mr. Harper’s trump card—to further fade as the top of mind issue for voters in an improving economy.
    * The HST comes into effect in Ontario and British Columbia — key provinces in a possible Harper majority — on July 1st. Waiting until the fall to call an election would mean that the Conservatives would reap the anger at the new tax — and normally it’s the first government to go to the polls that does — at a time when back to school purchases would still be very fresh in the minds of voters.
    * Waiting until the fall would also give Michael Ignatieff more time to recover from his disastrous 2009. On the other hand, dropping a quick writ in the spring — a page straight out of the Jean Chrétien playbook — would throw a spanner in the Liberals’ thinkers conference, planned for Montréal from March 26 to 28.
end of article

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is still more 2010 election speculation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/winning-voters-hearts-and-minds-its-all-about-managing-the-message/article1416775/

Winning voters' hearts and minds: it's all about managing the message
While Ottawa may be quiet as parliament is prorogues, the federal parties will be taking the time to prepare for the prospect of a vote in 2010

John Ibbitson

Ottawa

Saturday, Jan. 02, 2010

Ottawa may seem dormant, but there is life stirring beneath the political snows that blanket the capital.
Sooner or later in 2010, an election is likely. The political futures of Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton hang in the balance. Now that Mr. Harper has had Parliament prorogued, the Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic parties have two months to shape a political narrative for an election that could be called as early as March.

Some pundits believe Mr. Harper shut down Parliament to prepare for a spring election. Both Norman Spector, former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney when he was prime minister, and veteran broadcaster Don Newman declared Friday that a spring vote was likely – the former on this website ; the latter on the CBC's .
A successful Olympics, the unpopularity of Mr. Ignatieff, and a message that focuses on giving the Tories a majority government so that they can manage economic recovery and balance the budget could prove irresistibly tempting for Mr. Harper.

But those who take the public's purse aren't so sure.

“Election speculation is credible, but the ability of the government to survive into the fall of 2010 and beyond is real,” pollster Nik Nanos observed on Friday.

Darrel Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs, believes Mr. Harper would be taking an enormous risk by forcing an election that voters clearly don't want.

“Once you unleash the dogs of war, particularly if you don't have to, things can go disastrously wrong very quickly,” he said in an interview.

Nonetheless, minority governments rarely last longer than two years, and so a 2010 election remains a probability, if not in the spring, then in the autumn. The political leaders and their strategists will be using these fallow weeks to construct the narratives that they hope will bring success in the next vote, whenever it comes.

Mr. Harper's message is clear: His government guided the country through a serious recession, with Canada emerging more robust than any other G-7 nation. Only the Conservatives can manage a sustained return to growth that rebalances the federal budget through spending restraint without increasing taxes.

The question is whether voters are finally ready to overcome their suspicion that Mr. Harper might push the federal agenda far to the right if they entrust him with a majority government.

Mr. Ignatieff's challenge is both greater and more complex. He damaged his personal credibility in the summer and autumn by trying to force an election Canadians didn't want.

Chastened, Mr. Ignatieff must craft a narrative for a Liberal-led Canada that contrasts strongly with the Conservative message while not alienating voters.

On the economy, the Liberals are also committed to balancing the budget without raising taxes. On the environment, both parties support the creation of a carbon-trading exchange, but neither is prepared to say what it would look like.

“The Liberals have yet to weave a narrative on their view of the Conservative government,” Mr. Nanos said. “This will be critical if they want to move the dial.”

Mr. Bricker thinks Mr. Ignatieff should focus on one word: “arrogance.” He should argue that Mr. Harper is unaccountable, rabidly partisan and contemptuous of both Parliament and democracy.
He must gamble that Canadians are getting fed up with a government that harasses whistle-blowers, suppresses information and stifles legitimate inquiry.

“What is he trying to hide?” could be the Liberal election slogan. But do voters care?

The NDP has an excellent chance of remaining a strong third party in the House, and perhaps even improving its position. Mr. Nanos predicts that Leader Jack Layton will exploit his party's vehement opposition to the harmonized sales tax in Ontario and British Columbia, while also cornering a significant portion of the political market on protecting workers' pensions.

Mr. Bricker believes Mr. Layton will seek to position the NDP as the “legitimate opposition to the Conservatives,” while portraying the Liberal Party as so weak that it is in danger of becoming a historical anachronism.

As for Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe, he need do little more than repeat his stand-up-for-Quebec mantra to guarantee 50 seats or so yet again.

Mr. Duceppe can stay on as Bloc leader for as long as he wants. But if Mr. Harper fails to secure a majority in the next election, he may well decide that three elections is enough. Others in his party may also come to the same conclusion.

Mr. Ignatieff must, at the very least, bring the Liberals to within striking distance of forming a government, to sheath the knives that are already sharpening. While Mr. Layton will be under pressure to hand power to a new generation after seven years and three elections as NDP leader.

Whatever the leaders' messages, whenever they get to deliver them, voters will ask themselves the same question they always ask: Who do I most trust?

The answer determines the outcome of every vote.

While I would not want to bet against people as well connected and observant as John Ibbitson et al, there are some powerful cons that must be telling the Cons to ‘stay the course’ until 2012, if they can: this appears to be a ‘jobless recovery,’ to the degree that it is a recovery at all; Canadians are tired of elections and of partisan politics in general; and there is no compelling issue for electing Conservatives again.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail’s web site, is one of the cons from Con back-roomer Tim Powers’ blog:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/opposition-aikido---wholl-end-up-on-the-mat/article1413365/

Opposition Aikido - Who'll end up on the mat?

Tim Powers

Monday, December 28, 2009

When I was in grade 8 at St. Bon's, in St. John's, I was first exposed to the Japanese martial art of Aikido. The fellow who taught this special form of ass-kicking was a guy named MacDonald. He appeared to be more sober than John A. was rumoured to be but no less lethal with his opponents.

According to an internet source, "Aikido emphasizes the importance of achieving complete mental calm and control of one's own body to master an opponent's attack. There are no offensive moves."

Jane Taber's article this morning suggests Michael Ignatieff has shelved yoga and become a devotee of Aikido. Nearly 4 months after the PM used Iggy's silly election posturing to flip him on his butt Ignatieff, and to a certain degree Layton, are purporting to try to return the favour to the PM. Instead of wildly cheering for a national vote the Opposition leaders now don't mention the "e" word. They seem to recognize what the PM did months ago that the public was in, and likely still is in, no mood for an election - an offensive move.

Ignatieff and Layton now want to put the PM in a place where he pushes for an election. They make the assumption, as others have done, that Canada will be in a good mood after the Olympics and the economy will be on the up tick thus the PM will be unable to restrain his base partisan instincts to go out on the hustings to whip his opponents. Equally I am sure they calculate the more time in power the less appealing their opponent becomes to the people and this also affords them the opportunity to prepare. These are probably a logical calculations on their part but logic doesn't always play on this field.

Ignatieff in his interview with Jane mentions Canadians "want an alternative to the Harper government." An of-stated and undefined proposition. In recent days wise heads like Tom Axworthy and Chantal Hebert have offered definitions of difference. To date Iggy hasn't. The only historical example we can draw upon here is last year's Coalition debacle.

If that remains the working model of Ignatieff and Layton they will soon discover they are back on the mat out aikido-ed by the PM.

Given that Québec remains wedded to the Bloc out of  … what? spite? self-delusion? … then the next election must be won in Ontario (106 of the remaining 270± seats (giving the BQ a ‘lock’ on 45± seats in la bell province)) and Ontario is hard hit by the recession and Ontarians are grumpy – not a good time to ask them to vote for the current team.

Harper is, however, well positioned to offer Canadians an alternative to Harper – a quiet, competent manager who keeps his own partisan rhetoric in check and keeps shovelling money into Ontario’s suburbs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is some Tory spin, regurgitated by the Canadian Press’ Joan Bryden, suggesting that a Spring 2010 election is unwanted:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-has-no-appetite-for-spring-election-insiders-say/article1420065/

PM has 'no appetite' for spring election, insiders say
Harper focused on economy, sources tell CP amid rampant speculation around decision to prorogue

Joan Bryden

Ottawa — The Canadian Press

Published on Tuesday, Jan. 05, 2010

Forget all that speculation about a spring election.
Stephen Harper has no intention of calling an election or engineering the defeat of his minority government any time soon, insiders close to the Prime Minister say.

“The chances of hell freezing over in March are better than us doing something to trigger an election,” one source said flatly.

“There's no appetite [for an election] in the government, there's no appetite in the PM and there's no appetite in the Canadian public.”

Rather, Mr. Harper intends to keep his focus resolutely fixed on the “issues that matter to Canadians,” first among which is steering the country through the fragile economic recovery, the insider said on condition of anonymity.

Election speculation has been rampant since last week when Mr. Harper prorogued or suspended Parliament, which was to have resumed Jan. 25 after a six-week Christmas break.

Instead, a new session of Parliament will now open March 3 with a Throne Speech, followed by a budget the next day.

To opposition critics and many pundits, the move seems aimed at smothering controversy over the treatment of Afghan detainees and other pesky issues, while setting the stage for an election in the afterglow of Vancouver's Winter Olympic Games and an upbeat, post-recession throne speech and budget.

“I'm sure that's his scheme,” Ralph Goodale, the Liberal House Leader, said in an interview.

“He is simply trying to absolutely dominate the message by eliminating the democratic tools that are normally available to his competition and his opposition. And that, in his very devious mind, is probably intended to set up what he would like to have and that is a free cake walk to an election campaign.”

But Conservatives point out that Mr. Harper couldn't trigger an election without risking a backlash from voters, who seem dead set against the idea. They haven't forgotten how Michael Ignatieff's popularity nosedived last fall after the Liberal Leader pronounced that he'd try to defeat Mr. Harper's minority government at the first opportunity.

With Mr. Ignatieff now gun-shy and promising not to force an election, Mr. Harper would have to pull the plug on his own government – either by directly asking the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament or by including measures so abhorrent to all three opposition parties in the budget that they felt compelled to defeat the government.

Either way, Mr. Harper would take the blame for forcing an election no one appears to want, and risk losing the comfortable lead his party has established in opinion polls over the last five months.

Insiders say Mr. Harper has no intention of taking such a risk. He won't call an election and he won't include any “poison pills” in the budget in a bid to engineer defeat of his government.


There has been some opposition speculation that Mr. Harper might use the budget to reintroduce the idea of scrapping public subsidies for political parties – a move that would financially cripple the Tories' rivals and almost certainly compel them to defeat the government.

Mr. Harper first floated the idea in the 2008 fall economic update, triggering a parliamentary crisis that nearly saw his government toppled by an enraged opposition coalition.

Tory insiders say Mr. Harper remains committed to the idea but won't revisit it in the budget.

“This is something we're going to put to the people of Canada in the next election but not before,” the source said.

I agree that Harper does not want to be the one who triggers the election. He needs to trick the opposition parties into voting down his government on some matter that is not a clear and obvious “poison pill.”

 

[GAP]

I think some of the goodies that were in the 2008 fall budget will come back to haunt Iggy, especially now that the herd would have a difficult time creating another coalition.....that, and to just plain stick it to the Liebrals for old times sake..... ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is the transcript of an interview Prime Minister Harper gave to John Ivision and sometimes Army.ca contributor David Akin:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2413394

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, word for word

John Ivison and David Akin, National Post and Canwest News Service

Published: Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Pat McGrath/The Ottawa CitizenPrime Minister Stephen Harper in his office in the Langevin Block on Parliament Hill on Jan. 6, 2010.

Interview of Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada by John Ivison, National Post and David Akin, Canwest News Service in prime minister's office in Langevin Block on Parliament Hill, January 6, 2010

IVISON: Prime Minister, it seems there is not going to be much for us to write about, unless there are Senate appointments in our near future. Are they coming, will there be more than five and will that have a big impact on your Senate reform plans?

HARPER: As you know, the government intends to fill the new vacancies in the Senate. I don't think we've been secret about that, especially after the Liberals used their numbers in the Senate to block three important pieces of government legislation that were widely supported by the public -- cracking down on grow-ops, dealing with the problem of auto-theft and also some consumer product safety legislation, which, I will say as an aside, you wrote a very good column on, so you do think once in a while! But this is important legislation and we quite frankly find it appalling that it was blocked. So we will be naming the five vacancies in the not too distant future. That will help -- it will make us the largest party in the Senate but it doesn't solve all of our problems because we still don't have a majority. But it will make passage of these bills easier.
It will also give me some senators who will support the government's Senate reform agenda, which is one of the many things stalled. If there's any legislation that gets the most difficult ride of all in the Senate it's Senate reform legislation. I'm optimistic that as we appoint more reform-minded senators, we'll start to unblock the Senate.

AKIN: Just a quick note on John's question, you're going to appoint five and not more? You could appoint more.

HARPER: I have no plans to appoint . . . as you know the Constitution will allow an extra four or eight. That's been used once. It would be an extraordinary act, so I would hope we would never get pushed to do that.

AKIN: I'm going to move to the economy and you spoke in your interview with (CBC anchorman Peter) Mansbridge (Tuesday) -- you used a phrase "recalibrating the government's agenda."

HARPER: Yeah.

AKIN: I thought that was an interesting word and I wonder if you could expand a little bit, particularly when it comes to the economy -- what do you mean when you talk about recalibrating?

HARPER: Well first of all, as I did say yesterday, I think we're looking at a very different 2010 than 2009. In 2009, obviously, our focus was entirely on the development and delivery of a stimulus program in the context at the beginning of the year of a global economy that was continuing to fall at quite alarming speed, as you know. Now, where are we today? We're still in a period of uncertainty. I don't want to minimize this. It's nothing like uncertainty we had a year ago. We're still in a period of uncertainty. However, I think most people feel, most observers feel that there is potential for some upside this year. Most of us expect the economy will grow. There's doubts around that. We certainly don't expect to see a further fall. We've seen stabilization even in the fall. What the government will be doing, obviously -- the principle purpose of our economic agenda still remains delivery of the Economic Action Plan and the completion of the second year of that program.
But we do have to cast our minds in terms of the economy, in terms of our budget, to tackling the deficit. That will obviously be the next phase to ensure that the extraordinary measures we've had to undertake don't result in a permanent deficits. Right now we do have, we still have the lowest deficit in major industrialized countries; we have the lowest debt ratio but those assets have to be protecting through prudent management and our focus will start to be on exit strategies from the extraordinary fiscal measures we've undertaken.

IVISON: Are we going to see restraint in this budget?

HARPER: I won't speculate on what will be in the budget but I will say - and you'll hear me say this both nationally and internationally because as you know I'm chairing the G8 and co-chairing the G20 - that we'll be talking about, both nationally and internationally, the necessity of continuing the stimulus measures in the short-term but beginning to think in the medium term about serious exit strategies from some of these economic measures. And also how to continue to advance key economic priorities in a period of constrained spending growth which we will need to see in the next few years. We still have to be able to advance key files that will continue to build the strength of the Canadian economy.

I've given my cabinet ministers - all of my cabinet ministers now - comprehensive mandate letters to re-examine their priorities in terms of this major direction. We'll also review all government legislation. We'll decide what we're going to proceed with. We'll decide what we may combine. We'll decide what we'll drop and, of course, we'll be taking a look at what new measures we might be able to introduce going forward.

IVISON: You talk the budget -- can you assure Canadians that if the opposition parties support the budget, and by dint of that your agenda, that you won't try to force a spring election?

HARPER: Yes -- I have no desire to have a spring election and I don't think anybody does. I certainly don't think the public does. I don't think the intensity of the view there may not be the same but I still don't think anybody wants to see an election. I'm not even convinced the opposition parties want one but that's a judgment they'll have to make themselves.

IVISON: There has been a lot of energy spent on politics in your four years (in government). We've reached a stage now where some hard decisions have to be made. Do you think you need a majority government to do that and would you campaign on that when one comes?

HARPER: Since I just said that I have no desire to see an election, it would be inappropriate of me to start saying what I would campaign on. Look -- I've got a mandate right now from the Canadian people and I've said I'm content to work within that mandate. All we've ever asked of the opposition parties is to respect that mandate. They have to decide whether they support the government's agenda or oppose it. That's their choice. As part of the process of putting together a throne speech, we'll invite their input. But Canadians have given us a mandate -- it's a minority mandate -- we know we to work in that context and we will continue to try to do so.

AKIN: I want to ask a little bit about, not necessarily about climate change but climate change is the starting point. We look around the country right now, we have Ontario, B.C. and Quebec -- provinces that are going their own way, pulling one way on their approach to the problem -- and we have Alberta and Saskatchewan going their way. And some premiers say, ‘Where's the federal government been?' They accuse the federal government of not showing leadership that they'd like on the file and when you add that together, you have the seeds of what could be a unity problem, some fissures in the federation. Are you worried about that because there hasn't yet been a national climate change policy?

HARPER: I think you can only have a problem if the federal government creates a national unity problem. Provinces, as you know, some unfortunately can be critical of other provinces' environmental approaches, but ultimately one province can't control another province's environmental policy. It's up to the federal government to advance a national policy and our approach has been very clear. We've been very clear on what our targets are and also very clear that we're looking to implement these in a continental framework working with the Obama administration. Of course, it helps, you know, since President Obama came to office and since I've had my first meeting with him, they've announced targets that are almost identical to our targets so we continue to meet with them at high levels to look at best ways of moving forward. I think, as you know, we've got that framework essentially now recognized in the Copenhagen Accord. So look: I'm convinced that the country, this country, will be a positive contributor to a realistic fight against climate change. But ultimately, this government, the national government, will make those decisions and it will make those decisions in a way that treats all parts of the country fairly.

AKIN: When your party first came to power -- and Minister (John) Baird was famous for using this phrase -- that the Liberals just didn't get it done when it came to climate change. But four years in, we're still waiting to implement some of those things and some people -- if there are regional tensions, maybe it is on the pace of implementation, that it is taking four years. It took years for the Liberals and they never did it, and now it's four years for your team.

HARPER: I would put it in context. I think what Minister Baird said is that it was the Liberal party that promised massive reductions to greenhouse gases overnight and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing. This government has been very cautious in terms of what it says can be done. Our target is modest. It's longer-term and we believe it's achievable but we've been very clear, we believe it's only achievable working within a continental framework and that's what we're doing.

IVISON: Afghanistan -- can you elaborate on a military pullout in 2011 actually means? Are we still going to have a Provincial Reconstruction Team? How is CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) going to operate? Do we have any of those answers yet?

HARPER: We have been working on those answers but the bottom line is that the military mission will end in 2011. There will be a phased withdrawal, beginning in the middle of the year. We hope to have that concluded by the end of that year. As you know the Obama administration, not coincidentally, is talking about beginning its withdrawal in 2011, at the same time we are. We will continue to maintain humanitarian and development missions, as well as important diplomatic activity in Afghanistan. But we will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy. We will not be undertaking any kind activity that requires a significant military force protection, so it will become a strictly civilian mission. It will be a significantly smaller mission than it is today.

IVISON: Do you still believe in a state-building strategy in Afghanistan? Some people think we should have a much less ambitious game-plan because foreigners can't give the gift of a state to Afghans.

HARPER: I think the reality is that all actors over the past few years have been downgrading their expectations of what can be achieved in Afghanistan. But it is still important that we have a viable, functioning state in Afghanistan that has some acceptable democratic and rule of law norms. If we don't, we run the serious risk of returning in Afghanistan to what we had before. No matter what differences people have on the mission, everybody agrees that the mission has the purpose to ensure that Afghanistan does not return to being a failed state that is an incubator of terrorism.

AKIN: One last question: You mention John Diefenbaker a lot in your speeches I've noticed as I follow you around ...

HARPER: Yeah, in some contexts ..

AKIN: Now, he retired -- actually, he died as an MP.

HARPER: Yeah, he did.

AKIN: Do (you) see yourself in a decade -- you may not be prime minister -- do you see a career for yourself after this? I don't sense you're the board of directors type but I don't know, maybe you are -- an academic? What do you want to do? Where are you in a decade?

HARPER: Well, first of all, I think to be fair, let's give the people of Canada an opportunity to retire me before I have to cast my mind to this . . .

AKIN: Well, let's assume one day they will, it might be 20 years, who knows?

HARPER: I would hope not to die in office. My wife sometimes thinks I may be headed that way but, now that I'm 50, we're trying to live a somewhat better lifestyle . . . But look, I'm not going to speculate. I'm honoured to have the job that I have I plan to do it a while longer but I don't plan to be a lifer in politics. I'm not sure that that's really in anybody's interests. I don't think it's in the country's interests or the party's interests or my own interests but, in my own judgment, I still have a while to serve but ultimately at some point the Canadian people will be asked to make that judgment for me.

The upshot: no spring election – unless, I guess, he can find a way to trick the opposition into defeating his government, IF the polls are going his way.

Afghanistan: the military mission ends. The bureaucrats are casting about for a safe place for civilians to work.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright from today’s National Post , is John Ivison’s take on what Harper really means:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/06/john-ivison-relaxed-harper-sees-hope-on-the-horizon.aspx

John Ivison:
Relaxed Harper sees hope on the horizon

Posted: January 06, 2010

John Ivison

For a man whose decision to shutter parliament for an extra month has stoked “grassroots fury”, according to the Toronto Star, Stephen Harper seemed remarkably at ease when we met in his office in Ottawa today. Granted, this is not the pitchfork rebellion of days of yore. Rather, 66,000 of the species English dramatist Michael Frayn once called “herbivores” -- those middle-class, muesli-munching signers of petitions -- have joined a Facebook group, complaining that Mr. Harper is a “right-wing, Christian Nazi” who has left Canadians “voiceless”.

This point of view overlooks the ability of the opposition parties to boot the Prime Minister from office within days of the House of Commons returning in March. But it goes to show that you can get people to sign up for anything these days -- except, it appears, a petition to close down free porn sites, which still has just 127 signatures.

The Prime Minister offered his case for the defence -- that prorogation is a routine parliamentary procedure -- in an interview with the CBC the previous day, so my colleague David Akin and I pushed on to ground less well tilled. The over-riding impression coming away from the interview was that Mr. Harper is more relaxed than he has been at any point in the last four years.

The Prime Minister is not a man who responds well to threats or conflict -- the response is sometimes flight, or more often, fight, at which point he loses the clarity of thought that has been the secret of his success. But, looking out over the political landscape, there appear to be fewer threats than perhaps at any time since the Conservatives came to power.

Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal leader, has clearly signalled that he is not going to attempt to topple the government in the near future, which is why it is the herbivores who are making all the noise about the suspension of Parliament, while the Grits have been relatively mute.

In years gone by, Mr. Harper would have been tempted to kick the Liberals in the guts while they were on the ground. But he was chastened by the reaction to his attempts to withdraw the public subsidy to political parties, which almost brought down his government just over a year ago. Today, he was unequivocal that he will not seek to contrive a spring election, if the opposition doesn't block his budget.

He said he is comfortable with the mandate he has now, which requires that he build temporary alliances with opposition parties on individual pieces of legislation.

He was more sanguine than he’s been on the economy, saying that there is the “potential for some upside” this year, which will allow him and his ministers to start thinking about how to tackle the deficit in 2011, when the stimulus package ends.

That fight will likely be aided by the ending of the military mission in Afghanistan, starting in 18 months time. The Prime Minister was more forthright than he has been to date by saying that Canada’s involvement will be “strictly civilian” and “significantly smaller”, which should yield some form of peace dividend.

While he was careful to add caveats that risks remain, the sense from the Prime Minister on both the economy and Afghanistan is that the worst is behind us as a country.

He was surprisingly frank about his reduced expectations for the future of Afghanistan. Gone was any talk of democratic development or a better future for Afghans. The best we can hope for, it seems, is that Afghanistan does not return to being a failed state and an incubator for terrorism. One wonders if he would have expanded Canada’s role in that benighted country if he knew then what he knows now.

Perhaps it is the lack of visible threats, herbivores notwithstanding, that has relaxed Mr. Harper’s disposition. He is now the undisputed master of the House of Commons and the Senate and will remain so until the Liberals get their act together. He will be able to welcome the world to the Vancouver Olympics, free from opposition heckling about the detainee issue. He can then look forward to hosting the G-8 and G-20 meetings in Ontario this summer.

Woody Allen used to say he was “at two with nature”, which used to be an apt description of the Prime Minister, who often seemed to be at two with himself. With the prospect of better days ahead, perhaps Mr. Harper will bury the carnivorous side to his nature this year and be ready to play nice. Perhaps – but his political opponents had best not hold their breath.

jivison@nationalpost.com

National Post

My best guess: Harper’s “expectations for the future of Afghanistan” were always bleak. I think he embraced the mission, and the military, to practice “divide and conquer” politics in Ottawa – against the Liberal Party of Canada which remains divided on the issue.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Speaking of “divide and conquer” politics, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a comment by Conservative insider and former Harper advisor Tom Flanagan:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/polarization-ad-hoc-alliances-fear-of-election/article1419988/

Polarization, ad hoc alliances, fear of election
How the Conservatives wage their permanent political campaign
Tom Flanagan

Thursday, Jan. 07, 2010

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's latest prorogation of Parliament is an example of hardball tactics, similar to Jean Chrétien's prorogation in December, 2003, which allowed him to avoid Quebec sponsorship questions until Paul Martin could take over. Of greater long-term interest is the higher-level political strategy that has allowed Mr. Harper to stay in power for four years.

The 2003 merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives turned the tables in Canadian politics. Before then, the Liberals formed majority governments by winning 38 to 41 per cent of the vote against a divided right. Now, the Conservatives form minority governments by winning 36 to 38 per cent of the vote against an even more badly divided left. As long as the Liberals, New Democrats, Blocquistes and Greens fight among themselves for the left-of-centre vote, the Conservatives continue to win.

The Tories follow three strategic principles to stay in power.

The first is polarization, which allows them to divide and conquer. They seize issues on which the opposing parties are all on the left of the debate, so they can have the right to themselves. For example, the long-gun registry, whose dismantling the other parties oppose; global warming, where only the Conservatives espouse the economically grounded approach of tracking American policy; and Afghan detainees, where the Conservatives stand by the Canadian Forces, while the other parties ask whether General Walt Natynczyk, Chief of Defence Staff, and Rick Hillier, his predecessor, are war criminals. Such polarized positioning is perfect for the next election.

But politics is more than the stagecraft of campaigning; it also involves the statecraft of governance, which includes passing legislation through Parliament. Here things become complicated for Conservative minority governments, for they have no natural partners. The NDP and Bloc Québécois are too remote ideologically to be more than occasional allies. The Liberals under Michael Ignatieff's leadership are close enough on many issues, but, as the Conservatives' main rival for government, they are not reliable partners.

Thus arise the two other strategic principles for the Conservatives' management of Parliament.

They must compromise when necessary to form ad hoc alliances to preserve power. Mr. Harper found a rapprochement with the NDP in the fall, after Mr. Ignatieff's disastrous announcement that he would seek an early election. Now that the chastened Liberals will probably support the next budget, the Conservatives can veer away again from the NDP.

Put differently, the principle of forming temporary alliances means that the Conservatives must never provoke the three opposition parties to gang up on them in the House of Commons (except for minor stakes such as unenforceable resolutions). This rule must be seared into the Prime Minister's brain after he violated it in December, 2008. He threatened to cut off public subsidies for political parties and was almost turned out of office by a short-lived coalition of Liberals, New Democrats and Blocquistes.

But tacking back and forth among the opposition parties, forming tactical alliances as required to keep power, cannot work long if those parties are spoiling for an election. Hence arises the third principle of Conservative political management: Always keep at least one of the three opposition parties afraid of an election, so that you don't have to wage a campaign except at a time of your own choosing.

So far, the Conservatives have been successful in this. Remarkably, in almost four years of Tory power, the three opposition parties have never voted together to deny confidence and force an election. Someone's always been afraid.

Implementing this principle has meant adopting the strategic doctrine of “permanent campaign,” the most visible manifestation of which has been the waves of paid advertising directed at Liberal leaders and policies. Traditionally in Canadian politics, advertising has been a campaign weapon, but it has proved just as effective in avoiding campaigns as in winning them.

Yet paid advertising is only the most visible manifestation of the Conservative doctrine of permanent campaign. There is much, much more behind the scenes: a campaign manager always on duty and reporting directly to the Prime Minister; contracts for planes, buses and war-room facilities; grassroots fundraising and voter identification 363 days a year (no calls on Christmas and Easter). Indeed, the fundraising makes it possible to maintain all the other aspects of the expensive model of permanent campaign.

Permanent campaign is the equivalent of the military concept of deterrence. In the words of the old Roman adage, if you want peace, prepare for war. It's not always pretty, but it works.

Tom Flanagan is professor of political science at the University of Calgary and a former Conservative campaign manager.

Principles:

1. Polarization – divide and conquer;

2. Compromise – form ad hoc alliances, when necessary, to stay in power; and

3. Fear – always ensure at least one opposition party is afraid to force an election.

So far it seems to be working.

 

[Rifleman62]

Forming ad hoc alliances, is "making Parliament work", but the opposition will never admit it. The media will continue to repeat the opposition whining.
At a luncheon in Kelowna during the summer, the CDS  stated the same message: no troops.
IMO, I also think that, as a husband, as a father  (despite the media's best efforts to protray him as evil), and as the PM, the casualties are a heavy load for Mr. Harper.

 

[a_majoor]

While my opinion of the Globe and Mail is about the same as most other people on this board, this piece has a nugget of truth (just not the one the author thinks). Aggressive cost cutting is really the only way out now, given tax increases will be politically toxic (and ineffective, see the John Galt strike in the US), pressures to increase spending on the elderly will only increase and economic growth will be modest at best given Canada's economic base and small population. This should be THE issue next election, and a potential winner for the CPC if they  have a viable plan to do so.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/fiscal-math-tax-hikes-to-balance-the-budget/article1431298/

Fiscal math = tax hikes to balance the budget
Will politicians tell the budgetary truth, and would we punish them if they did?

Jeffrey Simpson

Published on Thursday, Jan. 14, 2010 2:52PM EST

Last updated on Saturday, Jan. 16, 2010 3:49AM EST


The federal budget looks complicated and, in some senses, it is. But it's also quite a simple affair.

About half of Ottawa's roughly $230-billion non-debt spending is transferred to people (pensions, unemployment insurance, children's benefits) and provinces (equalization, health care). The other half goes to programs that Ottawa itself delivers, such as defence, research and student aid. (Interpolation; close examination of spending is where the focus should be)

This split leads to the two fundamental questions facing Canadian politics: Will politicians tell the truth, and would we punish them if they did?

At issue is how to emerge from deficits of more than $100-billion amassed to combat the recession. The Harper government, now “recalibrating” after proroguing Parliament, insists the budget can be balanced in five years. How? By waiting for economic growth to reach about 3 per cent annually, and by reducing increases in government spending.

A growing body of expert opinion, however, says the government is kidding itself and, by extension, the citizenry. At least four former senior Finance Department officials, including two former deputy ministers, think the government is dreaming. So does Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, and independent economists such as Dale Orr.

Their point, expressed in articles, analyses and interviews, is quite simple: The government is overestimating future economic growth and the ability to cut spending. As a result, the deficit will not be gone within five years.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer underscored the point this week: Canada will face a structural deficit of $19-billion in five years, a point that contradicts the government's blue-sky prognosis. This estimate is premised on economic growth for the next five years being less than 2 per cent. The PBO's analysis was supported by Scott Clark, a former deputy minister, and Peter DeVries, a former director of fiscal policy, who have sent their detailed critique to their old department.

Mr. Clark and Mr. DeVries discuss the half-and-half budget. Okay, they say, the government has ruled out any cuts to transfers to people or provinces. There goes half the non-debt budget. How about the other half? Ottawa would need to find savings of about $20-billion from the remaining $115-billion to balance the books. Good luck. (Interpolation: there is no reason the government should exempt transfers to people or provinces, indeed, the recent examination of civilservice pensions is a step in this direction. This will require a level of flexible thinking and political courage we havn't seen in a while, though.)

The biggest single item in the budget's second half is defence (almost $20-billion). Any Conservative appetite for cutting there? How about first nations (almost $8-billion)? University research ($3-billion)? Atlantic offshore revenue payments ($3.5-billion)? And so on.

Some spending a government can't cut, because it's legislated; other spending cuts would create a hue and cry. So, sure, the Harper government can show considerable spending restraint – a big change for a government that's let spending rip – but not nearly enough to balance the budget. Any suggestion to the contrary can be charitably described as unrealistic or uncharitably described as completely political.

Which brings us to the outside economists' two other points. The government could just let the deficit linger beyond five years. After all, a $20-billion deficit would be just 1 per cent of GNP, and thus much less than in the nightmare years of debt in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

But higher interest rates are coming. So interest payments will grow on the debt accumulated before and during the recession, plus the sums piled up in the years to come, adding to future fiscal pressure.

Nothing will have been done to prepare for the fiscal impact of the aging population. No provision will have been made for economic slowdowns or shocks. In other words, the lingering deficit approach is a mixture of crossed fingers and imprudence.

The economists all believe the federal government should raise taxes to eliminate the deficit with certainty, pay down debt to prepare for aging, and give Canada a buffer against future shocks. Their preferred tax increase, of course: Raise the GST.

They argue, correctly, that the federal government has been cutting taxes since Paul Martin's time as finance minister such that the revenue-to-GDP ratio has fallen from 18 per cent to 14.5 per cent in less than a decade, while program expenses have actually risen during the same period.

Are Canadians mature enough to understand that this fiscal math requires some tax increases to balance the budget in a timely fashion? The evidence, judging by the Conservatives' all-politics-all-the-time approach and the timidity of the Liberals and NDP, shouts No.