Friday Afternoon Links

Content goes here.

- Aaron Wherry nicely documents the conflicting interpretations being applied to Jack Layton's take on the impending Con budget.

- Trish Hennessy weighs in on how to talk about corporate tax cuts, and points out Layton as an example of frame the issue:

During his Lang and O’Leary interview, (Jack) Layton was particularly strong on this aspect: that the corporate tax cuts are a giveaway with no guarantee of new jobs. He talked about corporations that have taken the tax cuts already doled out and left Canada to do business elsewhere.

This approach to the issue reinforces what I've heard over several years of focus group research: Canadians don’t trust corporations to do what is in the best interest of the people. A corporation's bottom line is profit. There’s much to be mined by exploring that angle within a progressive frame on corporate tax cuts.

What I've also learned through focus group research is that Canadians often take a position based on how we rate compared to others. They would be very surprised to learn that Canada's corporate taxes aren't high compared to OECD competitor nations. Canadians are, at heart, pragmatic people. They're unlikely to support a race to the bottom, especially if it affects our high quality of life -- something Canadians take pride in.

So, tapping into national pride, pragmatism, and fairness while maintaining a focus on prudent fiscal measures to protect public programs we love, such as health care -- these are the ingredients of effective progressive messaging on corporate tax cuts.

- Meanwhile, Excited Delirium points out why corporate tax slashing doesn't help small businesses.

- Finally, much as I normally enjoy Dan Gardner's writing, I'd argue that his latest goes off the rails in at least his example and arguably his premise about how to go about analyzing political leaders:

If it’s true that Michael Ignatieff intends to form a coalition should the Conservatives fail to win a majority, and if it’s true that Stephen Harper plans on unleashing his inner ideologue if they do, does that mean Canada will necessarily get one undesirable outcome or the other? No. Because there is a vast gulf between leaders’ intentions for the future and what they ultimately do when the future finally arrives.

Imagine it’s September 7, 2008. The Prime Minister has just asked the governor general to call an election. You sit down with Stephen Harper and, because you’re old friends, you have a private and frank conversation. What are his plans? What will his government do in the coming years if he is re-elected with another minority?

“I think I’ll spark a major constitutional crisis,” Harper says to you. “Then I’ll give Keynesian stimulus spending a try. Oh, I know. It contradicts my fundamental economic beliefs. But what the heck! Also, I’ll turn the current surplus into a huge deficit. Maybe prorogue Parliament again.”

Of course that’s what actually happened. And we can be reasonably confident Harper would have predicted none of it. Remember, in September, 2008, he was sure there wouldn’t be a recession. The budget would remain balanced. Keynesian stimulus? He’d sooner cut off his left pinky. Prorogue Parliament? Twice? Bizarre. Why would he do that?

Indeed, I will wager that if Stephen Harper, a psychic, and Paul the Octopus had all tried to predict Stephen Harper’s actions after being re-elected, Stephen Harper likely would have done no better, and quite possibly would have been whipped by the psychic, the octopus, or both.

This isn’t a criticism of Stephen Harper, mind you. It’s just reality. Asked to name the greatest challenge leaders face, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan famously responded, “events, dear boy. Events.”

Now, the problem with the Harper example is that at least some of the events were likely predictable if not outright known at the time. After all, isn't much of the explanation for Harper's choice to call the 2008 election when he did based on the reality that a deficit and a recession were in sight, and he hoped to secure a majority before those hit?

But the more general issue is whether our politics are doomed to be limited to the entirely personal question of how a leader will respond to events, or whether it's at least possible to meaningfully discuss a party's values and plans for the future before it arrives. And while past experience may have led us to be rightfully cynical about any party's commitments, I'd argue we'd be best off if there were a few less excuses for broken promises based on "events".