Stephen Harper is our choice for the rough road
The economic squeeze we're feeling puts the emphasis on needing a government that can best manage the economy
Vancouver Sun
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Liberal leadership convention in 2006 was a turning point for the party as well as the country. It was everything a convention should be, with stirring speeches, tough backroom negotiations and a dramatic, come-from-behind finish. Delegates came away with hope that their dark days of scandal, disgrace and decline were behind them.
As we noted at the time, Stephane Dion, with his stumbling English delivery and ideological approach to politics, was not an obvious choice to lead a national political party.
But at a time when old-style politics were under attack, he offered the prospect of a fresh start, an opportunity to win back the confidence of Canadians after the Adscam corruption scandal that haunted Paul Martin during his brief term as prime minister and shook the party to its core.
It hasn't worked out. Under Dion's leadership, the Liberals have failed to capitalize on that opportunity. They entered this campaign a pale shadow of the iconic organization that ruled Canada for most of the past century, with empty pockets and weak popular support that started to ebb further as soon as Canadians started paying attention to the campaign.
In an election, a party with a leader who is more of a liability than an asset faces an uphill battle, but a strong team approach can succeed.
In this campaign, however, Dion faced a Conservative party that proved able under Prime Minister Stephen Harper to accomplish what Liberals could not: It remade itself.
From the combination of a rough-edged western reform movement and the ruins of the old Progressive Conservative party left behind by former prime minister Brian Mulroney in 1992, the Conservatives built a political organization that Canadians across the country were willing to support. They earned enough votes in 2006 to form a minority government.
Just as crucial to where they are today, they inspired their supporters to keep their dollars flowing in after the vote.
The financial strength of the Conservatives allowed them to start their campaign against the Liberal leader within days of the Liberal convention by painting Dion as a weak and ineffectual leader. It is an image he has been unable to shake.
This campaign was also shaped by the Liberals' inability to recover from another legacy of former prime minister Jean Chretien, the reformed campaign financing rules that cut the party off from the large corporate donations on which it has long depended.
The failure of Dion to re-energize the party in the almost three years he has had the job set up a campaign in which platforms have mattered less than the leaders. This despite the serious economic crisis unfolding south of the border that has overshadowed much of the campaign and the mounting evidence that Canadians won't emerge unscathed.
While the Liberals and NDP have tried to use the economic uncertainty to their advantage, it's clear to most Canadians that our government can't be blamed for the downdrafts we are starting to feel here.
That understanding defines the economic issue as "who can best manage the economy in uncertain times," rather than "who is responsible for the mess we're in."
Harper promises a steady-as-she-goes approach that is more akin to Liberal governments of the past than it is to a true conservative agenda. The Conservative election platform provides an additional $400 million in loans over the next four years to help the struggling manufacturing sector in Ontario and Quebec. Beyond that, a two-cent-a-litre cut in taxes on diesel and aviation fuel over four years totalling $600 million a year will also help the struggling truckers.
Meanwhile, Dion's platform is designed to drive the economy in a new direction. The Green Shift is at heart similar to British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell's carbon tax. They are both designed to be somewhat disruptive to the economy while over time discouraging the use of fossil fuels.
But with concern over jobs, incomes and retirement savings outweighing the fear of climate change, we see little appetite for risky exploration of uncertain economic territory. That makes the Green Shift the wrong plan for the times, regardless of any theoretical merit.
The other issue that has had a remarkable amount of traction in this campaign is Harper's hang-'em-high crime agenda. The Conservatives have been able to tap into a deep well of fear and anger across the country, proving again that the emotional appeal of getting tough on criminals pays off even though there is little evidence that the measures they propose will make anyone safer.
Unfortunately for Harper, his crime agenda hasn't resonated in Quebec, as is evidenced by the slippage in recent polls. Harper's regrettable tendency to play on voters' fears has to be weighed against what he has achieved as prime minister -- holding together the longest-lived minority government in Canadian history and pushing through a significant agenda of change.
On the economic side, he has followed through with promised tax reductions. He has kept his commitment to strengthen our armed forces. By getting the accountability act through Parliament, he has ensured that Ottawa will be more responsive to taxpayers.
As promised, he increased funding for health care to reduce waiting times for surgeries and diagnostics. And -- of crucial importance -- he has resisted pressure from within his party to follow a more socially conservative path.
Significantly for British Columbians, he led a government that has taken the perennial issue of western alienation off the table in this campaign. Westerners are clearly in.
All parties are constrained in their platforms by their promise to deliver balanced budgets. With an underperforming economy likely to deliver diminished revenues, there is little room to manoeuvre for any party that gets to form the government.
That economic squeeze puts the emphasis on economic management in the short to medium term.
The Liberals posted a spectacular record in balancing the budget, cutting taxes and reducing the national debt for more than a decade under Martin and Chretien, a record that has allowed Harper to honestly maintain during a time of crisis in the U.S. that the fundamentals of our economy remain strong.
As for the New Democrats and the Greens, they should be considered only in their traditional role as a source of ideas and loyal opposition, not as prospective managers of the economy, in good times or bad, despite NDP leader Jack Layton's lofty ambition to be prime minister and Green leader Elizabeth May's solid performance in the debates.
As the campaign comes to a close, we have a choice between a Liberal who has been unable to capitalize on his opportunity to lead and a Conservative who had a rocky start as leader but has shown he can grow in office.
As Harper correctly put it this week: "Prudent leadership does not set economic strategy for the nightly news or rewrite plans for the morning papers. On the contrary . . . the strengths of a plan are advanced preparation and consistent execution."
The PM has certainly demonstrated this by executing tax cuts six months ago and by coming up with an economic plan that could potentially help us avoid some big pot holes.
So on the ballot box question that's on everybody's mind -- the slowing economy -- we trust Harper to navigate the rough road ahead.
A majority government for the Conservatives led by Stephen Harper is our choice.
© The Vancouver Sun 2008
This really was a misunderstanding and god knows we've heard PM Harper's french...
on the way out.
