ON MAY 2nd, for the fourth time in seven years, Canadians will go to the polls. On the previous two occasions the outcome has been a Conservative minority government, under Stephen Harper. Both the Conservatives and their main opponents, the Liberals, hoped to break the stalemate this time. Yet if opinion polls prove correct, it will be Groundhog day for Canada, with the Conservatives again the largest party but lacking an overall majority. There is one possible twist: the left-wing New Democrats are enjoying a late surge of support, especially in Quebec, and might secure more seats than the Liberals. Even if they do not, the two parties might conceivably join forces in an anti-Tory coalition. Then again, the NDP surge may yet help the Conservatives by splitting the opposition vote more evenly (see article).
Mr Harper’s record is in some ways impressive. Canada sailed through the recession better than any other large developed economy. True, that was mainly because of Asian demand for Canada’s natural resources, as well as the strong fiscal position and well-regulated banking system Mr Harper inherited from the Liberals. But he deserves credit for having administered a limited and effective fiscal stimulus, and for promoting investment through corporate tax cuts. Employment is higher now than when the Tories took over in 2006.
But there are some serious blots on Mr Harper’s record. He is a dinosaur on climate change. He has batted away all criticisms of the Albertan tar sands, where oil extraction is an especially dirty business, and placed his faith in carbon capture and storage, an unproven and expensive technology. Even some Albertan oil bosses favour greener rules. But the biggest worry about Mr Harper is his contempt for the rules of Canadian democracy. Since the previous election he has twice prorogued parliament for disgracefully lengthy periods, the second time to avoid awkward questions about whether his officials lied to the house about the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan. He has also got rid of watchdogs whom his government found too independent and generally tried to hand over as little information as possible to the public.
For these reasons The Economist, like many Canadians, would be relieved if there were a better alternative to Mr Harper. But there is not. On paper, Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal leader, looks attractive. The Liberals hoped that Mr Ignatieff, a journalist and writer who lived abroad for three decades, would bring them a scatter of stardust. Instead he has struggled to adapt to politics, and has plodded overcautiously. Fewer tax cuts, more money for health care but without reforms, and focus-group-inspired handouts for niche voters hardly add up to a compelling alternative vision. His party is still struggling, with many Canadians unable to erase the memory of a string of corruption scandals that disfigured the later years of the Liberals’ generally successful stint in power from 1993 to 2006. Indeed Mr Ignatieff’s weakness raises the unattractive prospect of a Liberal coalition with the NDP, an old-fashioned labour party led by Jack Layton, who has opportunistically opposed VAT and courted Quebec separatists.
Some day my prince will come
Coalitions and minorities may be the new norm in a country which now has four substantial parties. All things considered, Canada has not done too badly under Mr Harper’s minority governments. But sooner or later it will need a prime minister with a majority who can tackle difficult issues such as an ageing population, reforming a good but expensive health-care system, and coming up with a policy on climate change. If none of today’s leaders is capable of convincing Canadians that they deserve a clear mandate, then they should yield to others who might.
Mr Harper’s record is in some ways impressive. Canada sailed through the recession better than any other large developed economy. True, that was mainly because of Asian demand for Canada’s natural resources, as well as the strong fiscal position and well-regulated banking system Mr Harper inherited from the Liberals. But he deserves credit for having administered a limited and effective fiscal stimulus, and for promoting investment through corporate tax cuts. Employment is higher now than when the Tories took over in 2006.
But there are some serious blots on Mr Harper’s record. He is a dinosaur on climate change. He has batted away all criticisms of the Albertan tar sands, where oil extraction is an especially dirty business, and placed his faith in carbon capture and storage, an unproven and expensive technology. Even some Albertan oil bosses favour greener rules. But the biggest worry about Mr Harper is his contempt for the rules of Canadian democracy. Since the previous election he has twice prorogued parliament for disgracefully lengthy periods, the second time to avoid awkward questions about whether his officials lied to the house about the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan. He has also got rid of watchdogs whom his government found too independent and generally tried to hand over as little information as possible to the public.
For these reasons The Economist, like many Canadians, would be relieved if there were a better alternative to Mr Harper. But there is not. On paper, Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal leader, looks attractive. The Liberals hoped that Mr Ignatieff, a journalist and writer who lived abroad for three decades, would bring them a scatter of stardust. Instead he has struggled to adapt to politics, and has plodded overcautiously. Fewer tax cuts, more money for health care but without reforms, and focus-group-inspired handouts for niche voters hardly add up to a compelling alternative vision. His party is still struggling, with many Canadians unable to erase the memory of a string of corruption scandals that disfigured the later years of the Liberals’ generally successful stint in power from 1993 to 2006. Indeed Mr Ignatieff’s weakness raises the unattractive prospect of a Liberal coalition with the NDP, an old-fashioned labour party led by Jack Layton, who has opportunistically opposed VAT and courted Quebec separatists.
Some day my prince will come
Coalitions and minorities may be the new norm in a country which now has four substantial parties. All things considered, Canada has not done too badly under Mr Harper’s minority governments. But sooner or later it will need a prime minister with a majority who can tackle difficult issues such as an ageing population, reforming a good but expensive health-care system, and coming up with a policy on climate change. If none of today’s leaders is capable of convincing Canadians that they deserve a clear mandate, then they should yield to others who might.
No comments:
Post a Comment