Northern BC Dipper

There has been some snickering on the blogosphere today in regards to the Liberals calling for pension reform, a month or so after the New Democrats and Conservatives.

But has anybody else noticed that serious discussion of pension reform started in the provinces a year ago as a result of a joint Alberta-British Columbia report that recommended the creation of an Alberta-British Columbia pension system. Or the provinces are to meet in Whitehorse on December 17th to discuss the issue, with the implicit threat that if there is no progress on national pension reform, some provinces will go it alone and create provincial plans.

So really, it looks like the federal parties are not only late to a serious discussion on the issue, but dangerously late.

Ever since the New Democrats’ solid by-election win in New Westminster-Coquitlam on Monday, there have been increased suggestions from both the party and pundits that the HST issue could be used as a national wedge issue, especially since the Conservatives support the HST wholeheartedly and the Liberals generally support the HST but don’t want it implemented at this moment.

However, I question the possible effectiveness of the HST as a New Democrat national wedge issue.

In New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia, the HST has been a fait accompli since 1996, and it doesn’t seem that it is going to go away soon (even in New Democrat-run Nova Scotia, where the government has only made adjustments in regards to which products are charged the provincial portion of the tax.)

Newfoundland, PEI, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan do not have an HST.

Quebec has a provincial Value-Added Tax (as opposed to the other PSTs, which are Cascading Taxes) and has no interest in giving up control to Ottawa. Alberta doesn’t have a PST.

That eliminates the HST as an issue except for Ontario and British Columbia, which admittedly have a large chunk of Canada’s voters.

But even in Ontario, I have doubts that the HST as an issue that can swing votes to the federal New Democrats. Why? Simply have a look at the results of the “first ‘real’ election on the HST,” the St. Paul’s by-election in September. Despite the fact that the provincial Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats used the by-election as referendum against the HST and the HST-supporting provincial Liberals, the Liberals won St. Paul’s quite handily (47.6% to the PC’s 28.3% and the NDP’s 16.9%.) Furthermore, those results were very similar to the 2007 general election, placing further doubt on the HST as a vote mover.

Only in BC does the HST look like it could be an effective wedge issue for the New Democrats, and that’s probably a result as to how the BC Liberals introduced the tax, after an election in which that denied that the HST was under consideration (it was.) Even then, questions arise. After all, the New Westminster-Coquitlam by-election was fought between a strong New Democratic candidate and a lackluster Conservative candidate.

So, is the HST the wedge issue that will give the New Democrats more victories in the next election? I don’t think so. I think that the issue could have a role in getting some voters to have a closer look at us, but I don’t think the HST is the game changer that some are trying to say it is.

The Conservatives won Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, following the riding’s previous history. More surprising, however, is the Conservative win in Montmagny–L’Islet–Kamouraska–Rivière-du-Loup, formerly a relatively solid Bloc seat. At the very least, this could show that the Conservatives are a factor in rural Quebec.

The New Democrats retained New Westminster—Coquitlam, and got high seconds in Hochelaga and Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. Of course, if the New Democrats want to gains seats, they are going to have to figure out out to convert these second place finishes to first place victories.

The Liberals had nothing particularly to lose, and certainly didn’t gain.

The Bloc lost Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. That’s got to be a bit of a concern for them.

Of course, little of this matters in the long run unless confirmed by a general election.

What? Tell me how this makes sense.

The New Democrats should make a deal with an entity that totally, unilaterally, ripped up a previous semi-legal agreement with the New Democrats. Recently, too.

Uh, Michael Byers? The answer is no.

After all:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Considering that most people I talk to, from the non-politics followers to even local partisan hacks, are not impressed with all of these silly political games that threaten to put Canada into another election 1 year after the first, I think that these new NDP ads may strike a chord:

“Hello Canada. I’m Jack Layton.

Right now all of the other parties are putting all of their energy into fighting each other. It’s seems that everybody’s given up on making your Parliament work.

Everybody that is, except the New Democrats.

Instead of forcing another election, I’m working to get results for you. I’m also fighting to help out of work Canadians; as many as I possibly can.

Mr. Harper, Mr. Ignatieff, enough games. Let’s get down to work.”