By Susan Riley, Ottawa Citizen
It is hard to believe any political party can win office -- never mind a majority -- travelling the country championing tax cuts for corporations (even if the lucky beneficiaries are now branded "job-creators.")
What kind of cringing, beaten-down, brainwashed wimps are we if we let that happen?
You don't have to be a Marxist to take offence, especially when you know Canada's corporate rates are already reasonable -- comparable to, if not better than, those of our competitors. Even if you don't know that, is there really a motherlode of untapped sympathy for profitable oil companies, wealthy banks and their academic apologists, all of whom escaped the recession in better shape than the rest of us?
That doesn't mean voters are ready to rush to the barricades, shouting "make the rich pay!" Canadians are cautious, moderate -- but with a keen eye for fairness. And rewarding the wealthiest, while everyone else faces increasing taxes, a record deficit and higher energy costs, should be a hard sell.
That said, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has to take care not to overplay his hand in vowing to roll back the last corporate cut and delay future reductions until the deficit is reduced. First, he's too elegant to start ranting like a Scottish union boss -- convincingly, at least.
It could also be confusing, given that Jean Chretien started the downward trend in corporate taxes (from 28 per cent to 21 per cent) using the same arguments Prime Minister Stephen Harper now employs: that lower corporate taxes mean more jobs. And Ignatieff has to keep explaining why, if he deplores Harper's followup reductions -- first to 18 per cent, now 16.5 per cent and 15 per cent next year -- he allowed the measures to pass without comment in 2007. (He says the problem is the timing of the cuts, not the cuts themselves.)
All this to say the issue will probably fade once an election is launched -- and this week, disclaimers aside, the big showdown is looking more imminent. So what, then, will it be about? Nothing tangible, of course -- elections don't allow for serious scrutiny of ideas for securing pensions, or bolstering health care, or equipping the military. Heck, daily politics no longer leaves room for deeper, less partisan debate.
Instead, the coming race will centre on the leader -- his authenticity, his mood, values, or vision, or what is now called "narrative." This week we got a course outline: two scripts from the major party leaders, that are, in some ways, not that different. Both Harper and Ignatieff are in politics to serve. Both love this country. Both are focused on helping mainstream families. But different families. Harper likes blue-collar, non-complainers, "the quiet people, who don't usually make the news -- who don't make many demands -- but who are the ones who keep their families and communities going," as he told a fifth anniversary rally of party faithful last weekend.
Typically selective, he narrows his target audience: the truck driver, bank teller, pensioner, salesperson, farmer, fisherman, entrepreneur, autoworker, tradesperson and soldier. (Notice journalist appears nowhere on that list.) "They are the people we serve," he said. "These people love Canada. They love it deeply. And whoever has the honour to lead them must care about Canada and must love Canada as much as they do." Not like that visiting professor, what'shis-name.
But Ignatieff, we learn, loves Canadian families, too -- "hard-pressed middle-class families" who have been "playing by the rules," but have fallen behind during five years of Conservative rule. They are not better off than in 2006, their jobs are less secure, their kids can't find work, their pensions are imperilled and they are worried about what happens when their elderly parents need care.
"These are our priorities, this is what we care about," Ignatieff declared in a vigorous, uncharacteristically emotive speech to his caucus this week. "I've seen the fear in the eyes of Canadian families, and, if the Liberal party believes in anything, it is to take that fear away. ... No one faces that fear alone."
The pitches are similar in another way: Both talk about hope and play on fear. The ballot question may be what voters fear most: illegal immigrants, rampant crime, Russian bombers and the census taker, or growing income inequality, deteriorating social services and stagnating middle-class incomes.
If so, it is advantage Ignatieff. He has penetrated the time-wasting squabbles in Ottawa and discovered what really has Canadians worried -- and is telling voters they are not alone, that Liberals will put "ground under their feet." Details are scarce; this is a narrative, not a plan. But, by contrast, Harper's peevish warnings and tepid boasts already sound old.
Susan Riley writes on national politics.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/What+Canadians+really+fear/4189061/story.html#ixzz1CQit4HM2
It is hard to believe any political party can win office -- never mind a majority -- travelling the country championing tax cuts for corporations (even if the lucky beneficiaries are now branded "job-creators.")
What kind of cringing, beaten-down, brainwashed wimps are we if we let that happen?
You don't have to be a Marxist to take offence, especially when you know Canada's corporate rates are already reasonable -- comparable to, if not better than, those of our competitors. Even if you don't know that, is there really a motherlode of untapped sympathy for profitable oil companies, wealthy banks and their academic apologists, all of whom escaped the recession in better shape than the rest of us?
That doesn't mean voters are ready to rush to the barricades, shouting "make the rich pay!" Canadians are cautious, moderate -- but with a keen eye for fairness. And rewarding the wealthiest, while everyone else faces increasing taxes, a record deficit and higher energy costs, should be a hard sell.
That said, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has to take care not to overplay his hand in vowing to roll back the last corporate cut and delay future reductions until the deficit is reduced. First, he's too elegant to start ranting like a Scottish union boss -- convincingly, at least.
It could also be confusing, given that Jean Chretien started the downward trend in corporate taxes (from 28 per cent to 21 per cent) using the same arguments Prime Minister Stephen Harper now employs: that lower corporate taxes mean more jobs. And Ignatieff has to keep explaining why, if he deplores Harper's followup reductions -- first to 18 per cent, now 16.5 per cent and 15 per cent next year -- he allowed the measures to pass without comment in 2007. (He says the problem is the timing of the cuts, not the cuts themselves.)
All this to say the issue will probably fade once an election is launched -- and this week, disclaimers aside, the big showdown is looking more imminent. So what, then, will it be about? Nothing tangible, of course -- elections don't allow for serious scrutiny of ideas for securing pensions, or bolstering health care, or equipping the military. Heck, daily politics no longer leaves room for deeper, less partisan debate.
Instead, the coming race will centre on the leader -- his authenticity, his mood, values, or vision, or what is now called "narrative." This week we got a course outline: two scripts from the major party leaders, that are, in some ways, not that different. Both Harper and Ignatieff are in politics to serve. Both love this country. Both are focused on helping mainstream families. But different families. Harper likes blue-collar, non-complainers, "the quiet people, who don't usually make the news -- who don't make many demands -- but who are the ones who keep their families and communities going," as he told a fifth anniversary rally of party faithful last weekend.
Typically selective, he narrows his target audience: the truck driver, bank teller, pensioner, salesperson, farmer, fisherman, entrepreneur, autoworker, tradesperson and soldier. (Notice journalist appears nowhere on that list.) "They are the people we serve," he said. "These people love Canada. They love it deeply. And whoever has the honour to lead them must care about Canada and must love Canada as much as they do." Not like that visiting professor, what'shis-name.
But Ignatieff, we learn, loves Canadian families, too -- "hard-pressed middle-class families" who have been "playing by the rules," but have fallen behind during five years of Conservative rule. They are not better off than in 2006, their jobs are less secure, their kids can't find work, their pensions are imperilled and they are worried about what happens when their elderly parents need care.
"These are our priorities, this is what we care about," Ignatieff declared in a vigorous, uncharacteristically emotive speech to his caucus this week. "I've seen the fear in the eyes of Canadian families, and, if the Liberal party believes in anything, it is to take that fear away. ... No one faces that fear alone."
The pitches are similar in another way: Both talk about hope and play on fear. The ballot question may be what voters fear most: illegal immigrants, rampant crime, Russian bombers and the census taker, or growing income inequality, deteriorating social services and stagnating middle-class incomes.
If so, it is advantage Ignatieff. He has penetrated the time-wasting squabbles in Ottawa and discovered what really has Canadians worried -- and is telling voters they are not alone, that Liberals will put "ground under their feet." Details are scarce; this is a narrative, not a plan. But, by contrast, Harper's peevish warnings and tepid boasts already sound old.
Susan Riley writes on national politics.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/What+Canadians+really+fear/4189061/story.html#ixzz1CQit4HM2
No comments:
Post a Comment