Historically, something that has enabled activist left-wing governments is preceding conservative governments that have lost their way. These governments enact all sorts of left-wing agenda items in a futile attempt to be ‘centrist’ or ‘moderate’ or whatever. In doing so, they only provide bipartisan cover to their successors, so that whenever their successor implements something controversial, all they have to say is that their predecessor did the same thing. It’s an all-purpose get-out-of-jail-free card.
In the province of Ontario, the hapless Progressive Conservative Premier Ernie Eves spent like a drunken Liberal in a vain attempt to cling to power. After the Dalton McGuinty Liberals swept into office in 2003, they blamed all their deficits on the Conservatives they succeeded. It didn’t matter that Ernie Eves was in power barely a year; nor that the man he succeeded, Mike Harris, was probably the toughest fiscal hawk in Canada’s history; nor that McGuinty (and his successor Kathleen Wynne) made the Ontario the world’s greatest sub-sovereign debt holder, beating out California with only one-third of the population; all that was swept under the carpet with one line: we inherited the debt from the Conservatives.
In the US, the best example in recent is President George W. Bush’s last year in office. Yearly deficits, the TARP bailout, several stimulus bills to ‘jump-start’ the ailing economy, pork-barrel spending unrestrained by Presidential veto, all of it provided cover to Barack Obama for his more purposeful agenda of “fundamental transformation”.
Historically, there was Herbert Hoover, whose economic activism provided perfect cover for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, allowing Roosevelt to campaign against Hoover from the right, and then enact a much more expansive interventionist agenda when in power.
Fortunately, Canada’s new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, hasn’t been given this luxury by Stephen Harper. This is because Harper made sure that the books were balanced by the time this election was called. This is because ever since Harper’s majority win in 2011 freed him up to cut spending, he worked assiduously towards this goal.
Now somebody at this point will object. So what? Trudeau will just blow up the budget again. Yes, he will. But that’s the point. Justin Trudeau will do it, and Justin Trudeau will own it. All of it. Thank’s to Harper’s diligence, Trudeau can’t shift the blame to him or anyone else.
Even more, by cutting the GST by 2%, Harper has permanently lowered the ceiling on how much the government can be grown. As I explained in my last article before the election:
“Stephen Harper cut the GST from 7% to 5%. Many economist disapproved because a value added tax is a much more efficient way to raise revenue than an income tax. This is true, but the economists failed to understand Harper’s motives. Because he cut an extremely unpopular but extremely efficient tax, he permanently cut the size of the federal government. With a 7% GST, Finance Minister Paul Martin could simultaneously run a balanced budget with huge government spending. This is no longer possible – unless the GST is first raised.”
Because of the GST cut, Harper had a harder time balancing the budget than Paul Martin did; but as a result, Trudeau will have a harder time spending money – unless he raises the GST. And if he does that, he will provide the Conservatives a golden gift for the next election.
So, in the Conservative defeat, raise a toast to Stephen Harper. Unlike other conservative politicians who lose an election, he didn’t set his left-wing successor up for success with his dirigiste agenda.
Your analysis works only if the people you're analysing are rational human beings. The Canadian electorate doesn't respond to being analysed; they respond to being analized. When the tax hikes come they'll gladly drop their trousers, grab their ankles and take a solid pounding from their Liberal masters. And, in spite of what you think, they'll conveniently develop amnesia during the next election and mark a big X next to their local Liberal candidates all the while fumbling with their belt buckles. As we've seen time and again in this country, you can get away with anything if you're the 'natural governing party of Canada'. (natural governing party of Canada is a trademarked symbol of the Liberal Party of Canada @Copyright from the beginning of creation until after the coming of Jesus Christ, all rights reserved.)
Posted by: DWC | October 20, 2015 at 07:13 PM
Well, we are going to be the first western country (or any country) to get a stoner for PM.
Well done Harper. You will be missed. However, it really looked like Stephen didn't have his heart in this election. Almost no attack ads against Trudeau. Trudeau was easy pickings.
Posted by: bmatkin | October 20, 2015 at 08:55 PM
Dear bmatkin:
I think you are right. Harper has been in the front lines of the battle since 2003, when he took over the splintered and bankrupt Canadian Alliance. I think he is profoundly tired. I think his game plan was to beat Trudeau and then gracefully retire.
The trouble is, when you don't have fire in your belly, it is hard to win.
Posted by: Cincinnatus | October 20, 2015 at 10:10 PM
"I think you are right. Harper has been in the front lines of the battle since 2003, when he took over the splintered and bankrupt Canadian Alliance. I think he is profoundly tired. I think his game plan was to beat Trudeau and then gracefully retire.
The trouble is, when you don't have fire in your belly, it is hard to win."
I got the impression even back in August. After almost 10 years in power there will always be strong desire for change so if you run a dull stay the course campaign you are bound to run into problems. I also think those who opposed Harper hated him so much that we saw a lot more strategic voting than past elections. If you look at Ontario in particular, the Tories only won 33 ridings but got over 40% in 45 ridings and many more in the high 30s so the vote splits that in the past worked in their favour weren't there this time.
I do though wonder if Harper knew he probably would lose, but was worried if he stepped down the party would be plagued by infighting and so badly defeated it would take a decade just to get back into contention so he stayed on to make sure the party formed a strong opposition and was in position to comeback the next time around.
Posted by: monkey | October 21, 2015 at 05:30 PM
Dear Monkey:
I hadn't thought of it but you may be right. Harper may have known he might lose but stayed on to prevent a bigger loss. It would be in his character to do this.
Posted by: Cincinnatus | October 21, 2015 at 11:48 PM
There is a bit of a hole here in this article. Hell, lets be honest here, it's a gaping chasm.
Stephen Harper and his Conservatives practically bankrupted their own party. Yes it has now come to light that the actual Conservative coffers are now in the red.
Clearly if a party cannot manage their own finances, they clearly cannot manage a country's finances, and that is evident by the 9 straight deficits and plethora of cutting and under-funding.
Ask yourself this, as you as an individual here (reader), cannot even manage your own finances, who in the hell is going to trust you to manage a country's finances? Think about it.
Posted by: Amanda | October 22, 2015 at 03:06 PM
I attended a Conservative Harper rally on Labour Day and left feeling somewhat down. Harper certainly gave a good speech but both he and those in attendance seemed to know it was coming to an end. The enthusiasm was just not there. When he reached over to shake hands (including mine), I got the feeling that he was saying "thank you and good-bye" to many of his supporters. The campaign was almost like a farewell tour. I honestly think he was tired and the responsibilities of the office had really worn him down. And I think the whole Duffy issue had really undermined his spirit and his sense of trust, even in his own staff. I read somewhere that he didn't want a new leader to be saddled with the Duffy issue.
But with the votes the Conservatives were pulling, esp. in Ontario, they're not really in bad shape. I don't know who the leader will be but they're close enough to be the obvious alternative when the time for a change comes. And while I should not wish our new PM ill, I think we'll soon see that Justin is way over his head. His promises are outlandish and irresponsible. Actually that was reflected in the campaign. Harper campaigned as someone well aware of the realities of the world but Trudeau campaigned with bright-eyed naivete. Reality will overtake PM Trudeau soon enough.
Posted by: johnt | October 22, 2015 at 03:56 PM
Personally I think he thought he'd win. For whatever reason it was thought that the just not ready / hair ads were devastating and the steady course message would work again.
I'm no strategist so I don't know what could have worked against the "real change" campaign but clearly offering "no change" as a counter to that didn't work.
Posted by: james | October 22, 2015 at 04:10 PM
Re Amanda's comment: Aren't most parties in the red after an election? That is no surprise.
You spend all you have raised in an effort to win. The Liberals were out of money too after the 2011 campaign and they recovered. The Cons will too. They'll be flush again by in 2019. Bet on it. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the Lib coffers are pretty low and even in the red right now. It takes all you have and more to run an election campaign. That's true for all parties. I would add that the Cons were probably not as successful in fund raising this time out.
Posted by: johnt | October 22, 2015 at 04:49 PM
Dear John T:
I was about to make the same comment. Going in the red is just part of what every party does in an election. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is common practice. The difference is, when you win, nobody notices because you can replenish your coffers more easily.
As well, if Harper hadn't spent all he could, I suspect some of his critics would be complaining that he was pulling his punches.
Posted by: Cincinnatus | October 22, 2015 at 05:20 PM