Would you make a deal with these politicians?

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 04/09/2009 (6165 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Canadian political edition of Deal or No Deal! The wildly popular game show where leaders of Canada’s three national parties face off to see if a minority government lives for another year, or whether we head back to the polls for the fourth election in five years.

Our first contestant is NDP Leader Jack Layton, whose party is running a distant third in national opinion polls and who may finally hold the balance of power in this parliament.

Jack — it’s up to you. Do you barter with the Tories, extort a few concessions, and vote with the government in September to avoid an election? Or do you stand firm, vote the Tories down and head home to Toronto for a moustache trim and comfortable shoes?

Come on Jack, deal or no deal?

“I’m not making any backroom deals with the prime minister,” Layton said Thursday in unequivocally proclaiming there was no deal.

But wait, is that a waffle? You’re aren’t prepared to offer the Tories a deal, but you’re willing to listen to a deal? “It’s up to the prime minister to reach out to us.”

OK, you won’t make a deal unless the Tories want to make a deal. And then you’re willing to consider a deal? Fantastic.

On to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. What say you — do we strike an accord to avoid an election you could very well lose or do we break out the sweater vests and frozen campaign-trail smile and hit the hustings? Deal or no deal?

“We will not be doing backroom deals,” a stern Harper said Thursday. “We’re not going to be getting into that kind of deal.”

OK prime minister, to coin a phrase made famous on another competing game show, is that you’re final answer? “If other parties have useful ideas — good effective, affordable ideas — on the economy, let us see what they are and we’ll take a look at them.”

To recap, you aren’t going to make any backroom deals but you’re prepared to go to the front parlour and talk turkey if the opposition parties have an offer? Okey-dokey then.

Our final contestant is Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. In the recent past, you waited too long to say whether you would make a deal to avoid an election or vote against the government to bring it down. As a result, you positioned your party as parliament’s perpetual fall guys and made yourself look like Harper’s chew toy.

It’s a whole new ball game now, Mr. Ignatieff. You’ve already said you’ll vote as soon as possible to bring down the government. Do you stand pat on that position or is there wiggle room? Deal or no deal?

“Mr. Harper, your time is up,” Ignatieff told supporters earlier this week.

So there you have it. It’s ‘no deal’ from all the contestants and yet, there remains the real possibility of a deal. It would be deeply funny if it weren’t for the fact that the deliberations on whether to plunge the country into another election is hardly a game.

The economy is teetering on the edge of a mild recovery. Although an election in and of itself wouldn’t likely upset that trend there would be problems created by a transition should a party other than the Tories takes power.

And there is the impending autumn round of the H1N1 pandemic. A vote of non-confidence in September could allow the country to vote again before flu season hits. However, a vote that takes place later in the fall might see sneezing and coughing replace canvassing and debating. Remember, an achy, snotty voter is an unpredictable voter.

The biggest concern is that the Liberals, who have been less equivocal than the other two parties, still have not yet defined why we need an election. We understand that Ignatieff believes he can “do better” than Harper, but we don’t know exactly what he would do and how.

In the absence of a defining issue, Ignatieff appears more interested in triggering an election because of poll results (the Tories and Liberals are running neck and neck in the latest surveys) and not because the Liberals have figured out how to contain H1N1, balance the budget and get the growing number of unemployed Canadians back to work. Voters should be cautious of any party that claims a change in government would accomplish all these things.

All three parties have spoken about making parliament work, but it’s pretty clear none of them know how. All three use and abuse the language of co-operation, but in the end the three leaders are immersed in partisan self-interest. The punch line here is that even with all that bluster, it’s quite likely none of them, including the Liberals, really want an election right now.

However, what they do want is for someone else to take the blame should an election be called.

Note: a column in this space on Thursday wrongly identified Steve Ashton as the minister responsible for water stewardship. He is the minister of intergovernmental affairs.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca