Kathleen Wynne is now free to stab the unions in the back

In the National Post, Matt Gurney nails it. From a fiscal perspective, it doesn’t matter who won the recent provincial election. The province is out of money and a debt crisis is at hand (or will be shortly). The only choice was whether to elect the honest, straight shooter or his dishonest and deluded rivals. Ontario chose one of the latter. 

For Ontario, 2014 is like 1993 was for Canada as a whole. In the 1993 federal election, the upstart Reform Party was branded as ‘extremist’ by the victorious Chretien Liberals for mentioning the looming debt crisis and the need to take proscriptive measures. But two years later, the predicted debt crisis was at hand. As a result, the bond markets forced Jean Chretien to hack and slash, to do the very things he slandered Preston Manning as an extremist for proposing. In Ontario, it’s déjà vu all over again.

But look at it from the perspective of Ontario’s public sector unions. Their ideal outcome would have been a minority government. It wouldn’t really matter much to them which party was in charge because the unions could play one off against the other. If a Wynne minority had proposed the cuts, the unions could have moved their support behind the NDP, killing the Liberals in the next election. If a Hudak minority, the unions could make the NDP and the Liberals compete for their favour with the result that both would staunchly oppose any cuts with lock-step unanimity. This would make meaningful reform to the size of the Ontario government next to impossible – at least until the next majority government.

On the other hand, with a majority government, playing off one party against the others is no longer possible. If Kathleen Wynne is smart, she will pull a Dalton McGuinty and break all her promises immediately. The unions will go ballistic but she will have four years to recover and if, after four years, the budget is balanced and the Ontario economy is riding high, the Ontario public (minus the unions) might reward her steely-eyed decisiveness with another majority. A risky strategy to be sure but better than continuing to spend recklessly until the debt wall is hit. The resulting cuts will be much deeper, the political recovery time for the Liberals much shorter, and no glory at all will flow to the Liberals for demonstrating leadership skills.

This is why, counterintuitively, a Hudak majority would have been slightly better for the civil servants. Hudak’s victory would have come with a mandate to shrink the Ontario government, something he would likely have begun to do immediately. This is actually a better thing for government workers than a debt crisis because the sooner the budget is balanced, the less pain that needs to be inflicted overall, and the greater the percentage of job cuts that can be achieved by attrition. (If McGuinty had run a tight ship all along, no job cuts at all would now be required.) 

Oh well. For Ontario’s public sector unions, be careful what you wish for. You might just get it – good and hard.

Comments

[WiseGuy]

This is why proportional representation is so undesirable. Even a liberal government, when given a majority, will do what is right, economically, because ruining the economy costs elections. Making socialists happy in a minority government causes elections. Something governments hate.

[Alberta Dude]

Harper stabbed energy trusts in the back. He severely criticized Paul Martin for "hating Alberta". Then Harper did exactly what he said Martin should not do. He killed energy trusts and $3 billion of taxpayer money evaporated.

[Copinacus]

Well let's see. The dolt had two majority governments. Did he do what was right? Hell no! And through it all good old Ms. Wynne helped him along through the whole sorry mess. So now you think she will become a fiscal conservative. Hah. Don't hold your breath.

[Cincinnatus]

I don't think she will 'become' a fiscal conservative, I think the debt crisis will put the bond traders in charge.