Whatever the prime minister is up to, he clearly is distancing himself from the economy as an election issue. And to watch him do it is fascinating fare if you’re a political junkie.
The Conservative inner circle probably wishes Stephen Harper had either called a snap election in the autumn, just as oil prices began to tank, or that the PM and his finance minister had resisted the urge to hand out all those tax goodies in October, when they hadn’t actually booked the surplus the voters had been promised.
But that was then. This is now. And the Conservatives no longer can count on the economy to sweep them back into office in this year’s election, whether it is held this spring or in October (as is legally required).
Given what has happened to oil prices, the nation’s currency and economic forecasts, the government’s October 2014 tax relief offensive is likely to go down in history as strategically foolish and a case study example of what not to do.
Even if oil prices had not collapsed, the exercise was in danger of causing the ruling party grief.
Nine years ago, the Harper Conservatives were able to market themselves as prudent fiscal managers able to run the economy while keeping taxes down. The party also had some fresh ideas about cleaning up the Ottawa that was created through 13 years of Liberal complacency.
The image of reformers determined to clean up government in Ottawa is long gone. But the image of steady and solid economic management has remained intact throughout the Harper era.
But how do you reconcile this “careful manager” image when the government is seen to be rushing to spend a surplus it doesn’t actually have, particularly when the beneficiaries of the Tories’ main policy, income splitting, are among the wealthiest people in Canada. The perception of good economic manager has been muddied.
It is easy to see why Harper is so eager to talk about how his government is standing on guard against terrorists. If perceptions of a terrorism threat escalate in the coming months among the voters, Harper could very well pull off a comeback similar to that of Margaret Thatcher, when the 1982 War in the Falklands restored her political capital.
Harper clearly is trying to use terrorism as a wedge issue to force the Opposition into appearing as if they are soft on jihadists. But for a wedge issue to work, the Opposition has to oppose you. So far, they are not playing along. Their criticism of the government’s security measures has been very muted.
Unless something horrendous happens, the “terror ticket” may not be enough to distract voters from the state of the economy. Or, if there are casualties, public support may not remain strong.
Plus, it is hard to distract people from the economy when you have been forced to delay your budget until some vague date after the first of April. Or if the Bank of Canada surprises everybody by cutting its key rate to below 1%. Or if you feel you have to delay the summit of North American Free Trade Agreement leaders to an undetermined date. Or the fact that relations with the White House these days are about as low as they were when John F. Kennedy was president and John Diefenbaker was prime minister.
Still, the Conservatives have a couple of things in their favour.
They may be virtually tied with the Liberals in the polls. But break the polls into regional strengths and do a seat projection, and the Conservatives would appear to be on their way to winning a bare minority. Because of redistribution, there will be 30 new seats in the next Parliament. Governments usually have home-court advantage in redistributions of any size.
Finally, history may be on the Conservatives’ side. Usually, it takes two back-to-back elections to knock out an entrenched government.
As unpopular as Diefenbaker became, the Liberals needed two elections, in 1962 and 1963, to remove the Tories. As unpopular and scandal-plagued as the Liberals were after more than a decade in power, Harper’s Conservatives needed two elections, in 2004 and 2006, to replace them.
All eyes will be on Harper.
© 2015 Investment Executive. All rights reserved.
Uncooperative co-executor passed over by court
Case illustrates the risks of appointing multiple executors