The
debate over the current global and domestic economic crises is going
strong and divisions among federal political parties are
deep.
But
in reality, it’s all political posturing because there’s not much
the political parties can offer more than the government has already
offered.
In
fact, the political fight will not be won in Ottawa by the party
that has the best economic program, but the parties that have the
best communications strategy.
At
the present time, it looks like the Liberals and Michael Ignatieff
have the lead.
Let’s
face it. If we follow the debate around the world, the Canadian
experience is not much different from others; in fact, we’re in a
better situation than countries in Europe, Asia and, of course, the
United States.
The
Bloc’s Gilles Duceppe, of course, says that the stimulus package is
not fair to Quebec.
Did
they ever say anything different in the past? NDP Leader Jack Layton
seems now to be enamoured with Barack Obama. The social democrat
leader wants Prime Minister Stephen Harper to do exactly what the
Americans are doing. The reality is that, yes, that’s exactly what
we are doing. They helped the financial institutions cope with their
problems and we did, too. They had a package for the auto industry
and we approved that, too. They have a stimulus package ready to
roll and we have that, too. Layton says their initiatives are
bolder. He’s right. But their problems are bigger. Even if we look
at the trade balance, we see that the Americans stopped buying more
than Canadians.
As
for the Liberals, they have the best policy: we support the budget
because it is the best we can have considering the political
situation, but, as they stress over and over, ‘it is not our
budget.’ That means, if it works, they can claim victory because
their “probation” tactic kept the government on its toes. But if
there is a problem, don’t forget, ‘it’s not our budget.’ Then
there’s the government.
Of
course Prime Minister Harper was not able to detect the economic
tsunami to hit Canada.
But
for that matter nobody did, including Canada’s federal opposition
parties who spent the last two years talking about Mulroney and
Schreiber and many other puny issues that only irritated
voters.
Then
the November economic update came and the government tripped over
itself.
It
was not their economic insensibility that triggered the revolt of
the opposition parties.
The
government erred, again, in its communications
strategy.
It
was not just the Prime Minister’s offer to shed millions of dollars
from political opponents’ coffers. It was the message that it gave
to Canadians. How someone handles an issue says also a lot about the
character of the handler. The message here was a minority government
acting like it had a majority and got nasty against the political
parties whose help was needed to govern. The government was able to
survive because the solution proposed by the opposition was worse
than the one offered by the government.
But
this was then. Since November, many things have changed and the
political debate is now back to what it used to be: it’s a “you or
me” fight between Liberals and Conservatives.
Who
is going to win? As I said in the beginning, victory goes, of
course, to the party that makes less mistakes and, most of all, to
the party with the best communications
strategy.
I
mentioned the one from the Liberals, and this says a lot about the
strategy, or lack thereof, of the
Conservatives.
They
have prepared a budget that had to do because of the international
situation (don’t forget that the initiatives Canada has undertaken
are those coordinated with the G-20) but also to please the Liberals
and get their support.
Unfortunately
for them, they have the worst of both sides. If it works, the
Liberals will take the credit, if it doesn’t they can say over and
over that “it’s not our budget.” Conservatives are in a
corner.
I
don’t see a communications strategy to force the Liberals out of
their fox hole. At the same time, I don’t see a communications
strategy to help the Conservatives out of a corner where they’re
playing the role of the punching bag of the national political
pundits and operatives
