Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

The short version

by Paul Wells on Thursday, November 27, 2008 9:32pm - 85 Comments

Harper will back down.

Bookmark and Share
  • Eric-Vancouver

    Short response Why should we believe you, and why did you waste your time posting this?

  • seaandthemountains

    MYL

    it technically might not work a cleanly as that.

    it could amount to Harper holds fast; opposition holds fast and defeats the government; Harper would seek dissolution and an election; the opposition, if we are to believe the news etc., get their act together and forms a coalition; the GG asks the leader of that coalition if they could hold the confidence of the House; they could; and thus they form government.

    In other words, if Harper holds fast and the opposition does, he will likely not get the election… he will simply lose power. thus, as Paul says, he has to blink.

  • sf

    The more I think about it, the more I think Harper cannot back down. Does the opposition want to force an election because they have been cut off from the taxpayer trough? The opposition has no cards.

  • madeyoulook

    seaandthemountains,

    I am sure the Liberals would get a chance to hobble together confidence. I just don’t see them succeeding in the medium term, if at all, and thus the election cometh.

  • Gayle

    My theory is he never intended to push this through. He wanted a poison pill so the opposition could get outraged, and then when he pulls it back he can say he did it to save the country the cost of an election, but look how greedy those opposition parties are, demanding tax dollars during such tough economic times.

    He keeps his subsidy, and he gets to point fingers at the opposition.

    The problem is the opposition is signalling this is about the lack of a financial stimulus. If they stand firm, Harper either has to back down on that as well or he could lose the government.

  • Liz

    I think the argument that the taxpayer-paid tithe to bona fide political parties that is based on number of people voting for whichever party VERSUS Harper and Flaherty’s stance of politicians sucking off the public teat, to be the fly in the ointment. However would either of those two go where they are today without it? And how can Canadians be assured that political activism and new ideas that enough people want to vote for is protected.

    Seems to me that Harper/Flaherty have decided that ordinary Canadian shall be forced to think only one way. If they think the other, they are on their own in this great country even when a goodly sum think the ideas are worthy. Think about it: Canada has decided some while ago that funding personal votes to the tune of $1.75 (less than a cup of coffee these days) is a hat tip and a boon to free thought and free expression.

    That Harper/Flaherty would use this freedom torch as a baton to beat down opposition from any quarter makes your average Canadian (this one anyway) wonder why this instead of the myriad other issues a real government would be wanting to address.

    Parliamentarians and Canadians have decided that it is a good thing to allow/foster views other than its own, and recognize individual Canadians who vote with a paltry $1.75 if they actually get off their duffs and make an X for some bozo. Seems a fair deal, considering the taxes same individual Canadians pay just to get up in the morning.

    Why is Harper attacking this?

    Seems like Harper keeps wanting to reinvent the wheel in his own image, and convince his populace that it is a new thing. All other ideas based on the wheel are suddenly suspect and subject to Harper’s improvements.

    Comes a time when a man’s reach exceeds his grasp. Perhaps it is time for Harper to go on to better ideas. Face it man, the wheel is here to stay. It’s round. Period.

    Has Harper run out of ideas? Or is he waiting for someone to come clear the crud out from under his exercise wheel?

  • Wascally Wabbit

    I honestly love Jarrid’s comments.
    Fish swimming around in a fishbowl – can’t hear what is being said on the outside.
    Harper’s silly games have done more to unite the opposition parties than casual backroom chats over the last 2 years have done.
    Harper doesn’t get it any more than Jarrid does!
    And he won’t be able to spin it to make the opposition the fall guys either.
    Even a total backtrack doesn’t work for him.
    He’s dead in the water!
    And Iggy’s cynical opportinistic grab (via Stephen McKinnon) has done so much damage to HIS cause that he’s probably going to be on the outside looking in too…

  • Darrell

    He’ll back down because it’d be much more interesting if he didn’t.

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    Okay, y’all, is nobody else freaked out by the sudden return of the Kody? If that doesn’t bode ill for the lifespan of this particular parliament, I don’t know what would. (And welcome back, Kody! We’ve missed you!)

  • Jonathan

    I love how both sides of this issue know what public opinion is going to be.

    Harperites: Everyone will love this because the public is always in favour of political parties getting less money!

    Non-Harperites: Everyone will hate this because it makes Harper look petty and vindictive. The Liberals will form a government under Stephane Dion!

    I think it’s pretty clear that neither side can say with certainty what the outcome will be. That said, there are three points I’d like to make here.
    1) The public in general already sees Harper has petty/vindictive/mean. It hurts him, but less than you’d think (he won the last election with those public perceptions).
    2) Can anyone honestly see a scenario where Stephane Dion could a) win an election campaign or b) hold together an inherently devisive coalition government, particularly when he couldn’t even hold together his inherently-divisive-but-to-a-smaller-degree party?
    3) I asked my wife what she thought of this story as we listened to CBC radio in the car. She barely follows politics (she knows Liberals are left and Conservatives are right, but that’s about it) and she defaults to neutral (and she dislikes Harper), and her response was “political parties should get less money”. Now, it’s just an anecdote and not reflective of a trend one way or another, but she had that reaction after a CBC report, and after I reiterated that it was basically just a slap at the opposition. She shrugged and maintained her opinion.

  • Calgary Junkie

    Before the last election, the Liberal Party borrowed $2 million from the bank at 9 % interest. Part of the collateral for that loan was the $1.95 subsidy they would get after the election. If nothing else, Harper’s move will make it almost impossible for the Liberals to get a bank loan on the same kind of terms.

  • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

    the Bloc gets squeezed on their funding, that’s something all Canadians can rally around.

    Obviously Jarrid’s definition of Canadian doesn’t include the 2 million or so that voted for the Bloc.

    I happened to catch Stephen Taylor on tv last night while flipping around the channels and he and another rightwing talking head were badgering some liberal about this. It’s outrageous that Canadians are supporting a separatist party with their tax dollars they were braying at the liberal. I couldn’t help notice the similarity with another issue that came up not so long ago. Remember the little nugget hidden in Bill C-10 and the howls from conservatives that it was outrageous that Canadians are funding offensive movies with their tax dollars.

    A clear pattern is emerging with this government and its supporters. They see themselves as sole arbiters of what is and isn’t acceptable in this country. Movies, political ideology, who is and isn’t a Canadian (think back to the Israel-Lebanon war and the outrage kicked off because Canadians with duel citizenship were being helped with their tax dollars) and the list goes on and on.

    I don’t ever recall any other government acting in such a manner and it’s a very disturbing trend that needs to be squashed every time it raises its ugly head.

  • Jonathan

    Robert: Nah, every government has a “father knows best mentality”. The famous “beer and popcorn” statement made by Martin’s staffer is a prime example; people are too stupid to know what to do with money, which is why the government needs to spend it for them.

    It isn’t a good tendency, and the Conservatives are throwing themselves at it with abandon, but it’s hardly unique to them.

    That said, as a political reality – outside of Quebec, where does taking money away from the Bloc play badly? It’s a distinctly Canadian thing – propping up a party with tax dollars whose primary reason for existence is separation from said country. In theory, I completely agree with your take that they are representing Canadians and are as deserving as money as any other party, but as for reality, taking money from the Bloc will play well everywhere except Quebec.

  • whyshouldIsellyourwheat

    Harper has gone “all in”.

    The Liberals should defeat the government, and force an election with Jean Chretien as an interim leader.

  • Ti-Guy

    “The famous “beer and popcorn” statement made by Martin’s staffer is a prime example; people are too stupid to know what to do with money, which is why the government needs to spend it for them.”

    Oh, please. All that statement meant was that the baby bonus would only cover trivial expenses. And it turned out to be true. In fact, it doesn’t even cover beer and popcorn.

    …Anyhoo…

  • Gayle

    Jonathon – did you tell your wife that taxpayers will still be funding political parties in the form of those generous tax rebates we get for political donations?

  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    I really don’t understand why people think Harper will back down. Surely they knew what was coming when the first thought about eliminating public funding for parties. Everyone thinks because the oppp are united the Cons will back down but I am not certain. Harper has put himself between a rock and a hard place because the Con base are quite happy with the proposal to stop financing political parties and how will they react if they Cons drop it? How many times can the Cons kick their base in the nuts and not a expect a reaction? If Harper really does have a plan to make the Cons the natural governing party a coalition government between Libs and BQ, after voting to bring down the party with the most votes six weeks after an election, would be very helpful indeed.

    And if the oppo brings down the government, there are two outcomes, coalition government or election. Coalition government means Libs and NDP in bed with BQ, it’s pure sophistry to talk of coalition between Lib/NDP with BQ as not part of the deal but supporting the new government, or there is an election. If there is an election, Libs need a really good reason to have brought down the government. All this talk of stimulus spending is nonsense – the Libs are going to propose spending our way out of a recession and the Cons will point to Rae’s tenure as Premier and say that you can’t spend your way out of a recession and point to Bob’s more recent comments about how he learned that you can’t spend your way out of a recession.

  • Acer

    “Obviously Jarrid’s definition of Canadian doesn’t include the 2 million or so that voted for the Bloc.”

    1,379,991. A stone’s throw from the Greens, actually.

  • Jonathan

    Gayle – I did, actually. It bothers me as much as anyone that if you donate to a charity and a political party, you get a better break by virtue of the political contribution.

  • de

    Harper is not going to want to be midwife to a new era of coalition politics that will relegate the Conservatives to permanent opposition status.

    The dorks in the Conservative brain trust that hatched this plan will be sacrificed. It was a huge tactical blunder.

  • boudica

    If the reports are true, it would appear that both Duceppe and Layton have claimed that they wouldn’t form/support a coalition govt with Dion as PM.

    Does anyone know why? Of Iggy, Rae and Leblanc, Dion is the most likeminded option for the NDP and the Bloc. He is the most leftwing option.

    Why would they have a problem with him?

  • Jonathan

    Ti-Guy: If that’s what he meant, why didn’t he say “formula and diapers”? Works out to the same thing, doesn’t it?

    Here’s the full quote:

    “Don’t give people 25 bucks a week to blow on beer and popcorn,” Reid said during a panel discussion on CBC News: Sunday. “Give them child-care spaces that work. Stephen Harper’s plan has nothing to do with child care.”

    I think the use of the word blow, Reid’s subsequent apology, and Martin’s statement that “There’s no doubt in my mind that parents are going to use (the money) for the benefit of their families,” pretty much mean that Reid was implying that parents would waste the money. Don’t you?

  • Ti-Guy

    The principle of charity demands that a particular expression be evaluated with the assumption that the speaker is well-intentioned. I know that’s completely lost on most people these days, who go out of their way to assume some big bad elitist meany is talking down to them.

    Some people really need to toughen up. The point is, the Baby Bonus was useless. Case closed.

  • Jonathan

    “The principle of charity demands that a particular expression be evaluated with the assumption that the speaker is well-intentioned.”

    Out of curiosity, doesn’t that apply across the board? Couldn’t some Conservative hack come remind us that the party is only “trying to set an example in these tough economic times” and that “30 million may be a drop in the bucket but it’s symbolic of the political parties commitment to belt-tighten”?

    If that seems ludicrous, it’s because it is. But then, when looking out on the world through the rosy glasses of partisan fervour, doesn’t everything from one side seem sensible and everything from the other seem wrong? Enlighten us, Ti-Guy.

  • Ti-Guy

    “Couldn’t some Conservative hack come remind us that the party is only “trying to set an example in these tough economic times” and that “30 million may be a drop in the bucket but it’s symbolic of the political parties commitment to belt-tighten”?”

    I happen to believe I’m in the possession of enough information to believe that these “Conservatives” are generally not well-intentioned (remember…everyone else but them is a unemployed bum leeching of the hard work of families who pay their taxes and play by the rules). Besides, this *is* a drop in the bucket and has only served to destabilise the government, which is a boneheaded move in perilous times.

From Macleans