Interesting Economist artical last week:
Martin's mandate
May 27th 2004
From The Economist print edition
If he is to get it, it should be based on a serious debate
WHEN Paul Martin succeeded Jean Chrétien last December as leader of Canada's Liberals, and thus as prime minister, he let it be known that he would seek an election within weeks. Although he had served as Mr Chrétien's finance minister for a decade, the two men were bitter rivals and Mr Martin yearned for a mandate of his own. Only three years of a possible five-year term for the Liberals had elapsed, but an election seemed to make sense—at least to Mr Martin. His party was well ahead in the opinion polls, and the opposition was divided. Until a slowdown last year—partly induced by an outbreak of the SARS respiratory disease—Canadians had basked for several years in steady growth and balanced budgets.
Last weekend, Mr Martin at last called the election—for June 28th, two months later than planned. Why the delay? Over the past few months, sudden squalls have darkened the horizon for the Liberals. The opinion polls suggest that the ruling party may end up swapping a comfortable majority for a precarious minority government. Far from the confident gambit imagined in December, the election now looks like a panicky recognition that further delay risks heavier defeat.
The Liberals have been in office since 1993. An end to their automatic hegemony is good for Canada. Two things have caused it. First, the country now has the makings of a national opposition, after the recent merger of the western-based Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservatives. The Liberals can no longer win by default. Second, they have been hurt by a corruption scandal involving a publicity campaign promoting federalism in Quebec which was used to funnel C$100m ($73m) to their cronies. It happened on Mr Chrétien's watch, and Mr Martin was quick to call for an independent inquiry. But the affair has led some Canadians to conclude that the Liberals have been in power too long. Mr Chrétien's decision to cling to office for 18 months after announcing his retirement smacked of putting personal ambitions above the country's needs. So, perhaps, does Mr Martin's thirst for his own mandate: he is prime minister, not president.
More competition among the parties means that the campaign ought to produce a debate over the policy choices Canada faces. It needs to maintain the trust of the United States by careful management of its disagreements with its powerful neighbour. The public health-care system, in many ways admirable, demands ever more cash. So does defence, neglected in recent years. The finances of many provinces are unravelling. But Canadian taxes are already higher than those in the United States—and Canadian incomes buy some 15% less than those of their southern neighbours.
How to keep health care healthy
Yet will voters actually hear serious discussion of these issues? The newly-merged Conservatives would like to see more private investment in the delivery of publicly-financed health care. So would the health minister, Pierre Pettigrew. But any sort of adult discussion of the reform of health care is considered politically explosive: for many Canadians, Medicare is a touchstone of national identity. So the Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, prefers to campaign against Liberal sleaze. This is in part, perhaps, because his own party is not yet an alloy: the old Red Tories of the Progressive Conservatives are unhappy with the small-government agenda and social conservatism of the former Alliance, from which Mr Harper comes.
For his part, Mr Martin, who as finance minister presented himself as a tax-cutting fiscal conservative, promises an extra C$3 billion a year for health and other social programmes—with no reforms attached. That may be because he knows he may have to form a coalition with the leftish New Democrats.
Canadians deserve better than this. Their country has done well under the Liberals, forging a distinctive amalgam of a North American economy with a European welfare state, while remaining as open to migrants as the United States. But this balancing act requires a constant weighing of priorities. A competitive election should mean a serious debate, not sloganising and evading the issues. It is not too late to have one.
OTB
Martin's mandate
May 27th 2004
From The Economist print edition
If he is to get it, it should be based on a serious debate
WHEN Paul Martin succeeded Jean Chrétien last December as leader of Canada's Liberals, and thus as prime minister, he let it be known that he would seek an election within weeks. Although he had served as Mr Chrétien's finance minister for a decade, the two men were bitter rivals and Mr Martin yearned for a mandate of his own. Only three years of a possible five-year term for the Liberals had elapsed, but an election seemed to make sense—at least to Mr Martin. His party was well ahead in the opinion polls, and the opposition was divided. Until a slowdown last year—partly induced by an outbreak of the SARS respiratory disease—Canadians had basked for several years in steady growth and balanced budgets.
Last weekend, Mr Martin at last called the election—for June 28th, two months later than planned. Why the delay? Over the past few months, sudden squalls have darkened the horizon for the Liberals. The opinion polls suggest that the ruling party may end up swapping a comfortable majority for a precarious minority government. Far from the confident gambit imagined in December, the election now looks like a panicky recognition that further delay risks heavier defeat.
The Liberals have been in office since 1993. An end to their automatic hegemony is good for Canada. Two things have caused it. First, the country now has the makings of a national opposition, after the recent merger of the western-based Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservatives. The Liberals can no longer win by default. Second, they have been hurt by a corruption scandal involving a publicity campaign promoting federalism in Quebec which was used to funnel C$100m ($73m) to their cronies. It happened on Mr Chrétien's watch, and Mr Martin was quick to call for an independent inquiry. But the affair has led some Canadians to conclude that the Liberals have been in power too long. Mr Chrétien's decision to cling to office for 18 months after announcing his retirement smacked of putting personal ambitions above the country's needs. So, perhaps, does Mr Martin's thirst for his own mandate: he is prime minister, not president.
More competition among the parties means that the campaign ought to produce a debate over the policy choices Canada faces. It needs to maintain the trust of the United States by careful management of its disagreements with its powerful neighbour. The public health-care system, in many ways admirable, demands ever more cash. So does defence, neglected in recent years. The finances of many provinces are unravelling. But Canadian taxes are already higher than those in the United States—and Canadian incomes buy some 15% less than those of their southern neighbours.
How to keep health care healthy
Yet will voters actually hear serious discussion of these issues? The newly-merged Conservatives would like to see more private investment in the delivery of publicly-financed health care. So would the health minister, Pierre Pettigrew. But any sort of adult discussion of the reform of health care is considered politically explosive: for many Canadians, Medicare is a touchstone of national identity. So the Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, prefers to campaign against Liberal sleaze. This is in part, perhaps, because his own party is not yet an alloy: the old Red Tories of the Progressive Conservatives are unhappy with the small-government agenda and social conservatism of the former Alliance, from which Mr Harper comes.
For his part, Mr Martin, who as finance minister presented himself as a tax-cutting fiscal conservative, promises an extra C$3 billion a year for health and other social programmes—with no reforms attached. That may be because he knows he may have to form a coalition with the leftish New Democrats.
Canadians deserve better than this. Their country has done well under the Liberals, forging a distinctive amalgam of a North American economy with a European welfare state, while remaining as open to migrants as the United States. But this balancing act requires a constant weighing of priorities. A competitive election should mean a serious debate, not sloganising and evading the issues. It is not too late to have one.
OTB
