Modeling Journey

"Ignatieff recently stated, “The only good thing I can say about bad weather and lots of rain is it allows me to sit at home and think thoughts here,” he said. “We’re getting policy together. We’ve got an ambitious policy agenda for Canadians to present in the fall.""

An ambitious policy agenda, to be revealed to Canadians in the fall (presumably, should there be an election in the fall).

One word of caution about the policy agenda. One assumes that it will address the parlous state of the nation's finances (courtesy of the Harper – recession twin impact). And herein lies the problem facing the Liberals.

Look at the size of the deficits facing us:

"Last week, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said a prediction from parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page — that Canada will add $156 billion in debt over the next five years and has a deficit that will be hard to erase without special measures — is flawed and overly pessimistic.

In the report, Page said the deficit will still be $16.7 billion in the fiscal year 2013-14, and there will be a structural deficit — one that requires tax increases or spending cuts to address — of about $12 billion.

The federal government had projected a surplus of $700 million for 2013-14 in its Jan. 27 budget. It expects that when the federal stimulus spending ends, largely by 2011–12, "the budget balance will improve sharply starting in 2011–12, with a return to surplus in 2013–14.""

Pay attention to Page's comments on a structural deficit. This means one which we cannot reduce by growing the economy. It means one which – as Page says – requires "tax increases or spending cuts to address".

Now picture the Liberal policy of setting out an "ambitious policy agenda" in the short period from the dropping of the writ calling for an election, and the election itself. This period (less than six weeks, or less than a month and a half) is the period during which Ignatieff's advisors believe that they can persuade voters to choose the Liberals over the Tories as the next government.

Why is this short period a problem? Why does this strategy pose enormous risks for the Liberal Party?

Because it is such a short period, and because the Tories have won the framing war with the LPC over the past two or so years, hands down.

Now imagine this: Ignatieff announces the ambitious policy agenda, and Harper springs into action. The Tories revert to their successful framing of the tax issue: they attack any part of the policy agenda by claiming that the Liberals have tabled – in the middle of a recession! – a "tax and spend" agenda. They then declare that the Tories will never raise taxes, unlike those liberal Liberals.

Never, ever.

Read their lips.

But at the same time they will continue with their successful strategy of denying reality. Witness their disagreement with Page, as described above. The Tory strategy is simply to deny any problem arises from the massive deficits, to state that a Tory government will be rock steady in running the country and will not raise taxes but by not spending too much more, will simply allow the country to grow out of the smaller deficits which they foresee.

And at the same time, to run ads about Ignatieff's backtracking on new or raised taxes. Continuously, during the 6-week election period.

What does this mean for the Liberal policy agenda?

Simply this: the policies had better address how the funding will be achieved to implement them, and how the deficits will be dealt with, including whether new taxes or restored taxes will be part of the Liberal policy. If we will restore GST to what it was before Harper slashed it to win a handful of votes, then we will need to say so.

And to explain that taxes are a good thing. That raising taxes to save future generations being straddled with structural deficits is a good thing.
In other words, level with the people.

And re-think the timing of the release of the ambitious policy agenda, given Lakoff's advice about the time it takes to re-frame a debate about things like taxes.

Or risk Harper winning yet another framing contest and blowing the Liberal policy agenda out of the water with skilful (and probably dishonest) framing during the short election period.