Years ago, when I was a cub reporter, Mel Lastman, then mayor of the former City of North York (a Toronto suburb), pulled me aside to confide that the city’s budget for the coming fiscal year was showing a horrendous tax increase.

It was all so awful, Mel said, he just had to confide in somebody — and of course the people of North York needed to be alerted. Being young and inexperienced, I swallowed his “tip” whole and wrote a front-page story warning of an apocalyptic increase in the municipal mill rate.

When North York’s budget did finally pass, there was a tax increase. But, of course, it was much smaller than what I had warned the voters about. I felt stupid. But Mel was busy congratulating city council for working so hard to prevent a horrendous tax increase — and congratulating himself by implication.

Thus, I had my first lesson in political posturing and the cynical management of people’s expectations. Since then, I have watched many governments hint of tough budgets and then produce much milder documents using the same reverse psychology.

This is standard pre-budget expectation management. But the current federal government doesn’t appear to be following it. In fact, it is hard to figure out what pre-budget strategy this government is following.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty did start the pre-budget process before speaking to the Empire Club in Toronto on Nov. 20, 2009. It was a very carefully worded speech, with lots of trap doors, in which he talked about “staying the course” and the “second phase” of a recovery plan — in almost the same breath.

Flaherty also reiterated that there will be no tax increases and no cuts to transfer payments to the provinces. He spoke about what economic recovery will do for the federal balance sheet, an implication that recovery will take care of the sudden deficit that Ottawa had rung up during the recession. And he hinted that some programs that have done their jobs will be phased out.

In other words, there was a little something for everybody in the speech.

In the following weeks, the minister talked about cutting back the federal civil service and word leaked out that the government is looking to roll back generous early-retirement provisions in senior bureaucrats’ pension plans.

From those clues, the Tories’ core supporters can infer that the Harper government will be relying on economic recovery and some trimming of staff to complete its economic recovery plan and manage the deficit. There will, however, be nothing in the budget that adversely affects loyal Harper voters.

At least, that looked like the trial balloon the government was using to test the middle class’s reaction. And, given that the government is holding steady in the polls, that strategy probably has worked.

It boils down to a reversal of the usual strategy: keep the core vote feeling comfy. That way, they won’t even think of telling pollsters that they might switch preferences. It’s the opposite of the “scare them up front” approach. But the Harper government seemed to do an about-face just before New Year’s Day, when it prorogued Parliament and announced that the budget will be presented on March 4, a day after Parliament returns, with a new session and a throne speech.

In the past, the Department of Finance has delivered the draft budget to the Prime Minister’s Office just before Christmas with a recommended date for budget day. Then the prime minister and the finance minister decide in early January on a date for the spring budget.

This time, the prime minister’s media staff simply announced that budget day would be March 4, with a vague remark that the government wants to make a clean start and concentrate on the economic recovery. This is probably the first time the budget’s date has not been announced by the finance minister. Regardless of the Department of Finance’s input into the 2010 budget, it is clearly a PMO operation now.

With Flaherty relegated to a supporting part in the operation, the PMO could be using the budget as a pre-election tactic — and that does not necessarily mean a voter-friendly document.

If the Harper government thinks the Liberals are weak enough, the Tories could engineer their own defeat and force an election by producing a budget so draconian their opponents could not support it and would have to vote non-confidence in the government. After a successful snap election, in which the Tories would finally get their majority, serious action against the deficit could begin, including tax increases.

@page_break@Or, in the event that the Tories detect that the public is completely adamant in opposing an election, as it was in the fall of 2009, the government could table a voter-friendly budget, with any tough stuff taking effect in future fiscal years to keep the party’s election options open.

A lot will depend on the Liberals. If the Tories sense rising Liberal strength, they may want to force a snap election before their opponents get stronger. Or, if the Liberals can’t bolster their strength in the two months that Parliament is out, the Tories may want to have an immediate election anyway. If there ever was an election budget, this is it. IE