LIBERALS’ TURNAROUND THRONE SPEECH EXPOSES DIVISIONS INSIDE PARTY LINES
If you were stunned at the avalanche of promises and massive spending spree that tumbled out of the B.C. Liberal government’s throne speech last week, you weren’t alone.
Among longtime Liberals, there are more than a few uncomfortable questions for Premier Christy Clark about the ramifications of the two dozen policy reversals, new proposals and outright flip-flops she unveiled in Thursday’s speech.
“I think there’s likely to be some real angst today in the part of business and fiscal conservatives,” said former energy minister Bill Bennett, who did not run for re-election in Kootenay East after four terms.
“But my message is if this coalition of B.C. Liberals was ever under a test, this is probably the greatest test it has had since 2001, without question. And it’s going to be us — and I’m a fiscal conservative — to be prepared to work with this and do some compromising without compromising the basic principles we hold … and that’s going to be a tall order given some of the commitments made.
“But I feel we have to give our party, our government, a chance to show they can do this, because the alternative is horrible for the province of B.C.”
You can split the internal Liberal reaction into roughly two camps: relief and horror.
There is relief among Metro Vancouver MLAs who saw the party snap to attention on ignored urban affordability issues with an innovative new rent-to-own housing program and the government’s naked plagiarism of the NDP’s best campaign promises — to raise the welfare rate, scrap bridge tolls, ban corporate and union donations, accelerate the Pattullo Bridge replacement and more strictly enforce existing protections for renters.
Horrified are fiscal conservatives, who wonder how to pay for a grab bag of billions in new promises, and those in resourcedependent rural communities who were unimpressed by the plan to accelerate increases to the carbon tax by two years. The Liberals had promised a freeze on the carbon tax until 2021, and negotiated an out from a federal carbon tax program if it wasn’t fair for B.C.
“I think fiscal conservatives, particularly those who worry about the competitiveness of our natural resource industries, would see that as quite an aboutface,” Bennett said.
“The way I can justify continuing to support the premier and the government is that they have committed to offsetting increases in the carbon tax by reductions in the PST. I think for the mining and forest and oil and gas industry, that — I hope — will be sufficient.”
The Liberal free-enterprise coalition is a big tent of centreright liberals and right-wing conservatives, so naturally, not everyone is happy with a throne speech that changed, flip-flopped or created out of thin air more than 25 new party positions.
But scrape beneath the surface and you can find a common thread of frustration. If the Liberal government can now suddenly can find the so-called “structural surplus,” as Premier Christy Clark put it, to afford billions in new promises, why couldn’t it have found the same money a few weeks ago, when it could have saved the party’s political life during the election?
Privately, some Liberals lay the blame on Finance Minister Mike de Jong.
A legendary penny-pincher, he’s built up his fair share of resentment over the years, as the frugal farmer from Abbotsford whose control of the provincial finances consisted of mostly saying no to his colleagues when they proposed spending on new programs or services.
That frugality was welcomed during times of economic restraint, but when the government pivoted to spending in key areas in advance of the election, de Jong seemed the wrong fit for the job.
Unable to pry money from finance, Liberal MLAs were forced to spend months publicly regurgitating ludicrous explanations about how raising the welfare rate was less important than creating jobs, about how scrapping bridge tolls would destroy B.C.’s triple-A credit rating, about how a poverty reduction plan was unnecessary for a party with such a strong economic record and about how there simply wasn’t enough money to fund an affordable child-care plan or assist cash-strapped urban renters.
Imagine their fury now that they learn there was money all along. How much, de Jong will reveal later this week in public accounts. He’ll insist he was just being cautious and prudent in his forecasting. Whether anyone believes him — even in his own party — is another story.
The government has been too “hell-bent on balanced budgets” and conservative forecasts while crises brewed on mental health, social programs and housing affordability, Liberal MLA Darryl Plecas said.
“We still have wanted to do these things — in caucus, we yell and scream about the need to do more — but it’s always been up against: ‘Yeah, but we will do those things so long as we can afford them,’ ” Plecas said in an interview.
“I think you need to have a mindset that says figure it out, make it work — and I think right now we’re at that place.
“We take no risk when it comes to money,” added Plecas, who has pushed internally on mental health funding in particular.
“We don’t have anybody who is more competent than Mike de Jong. He’s outrageously competent as a legislator — but he’s conservative. I don’t want to take away from that, and I know part of why he’s doing it, which is to pay down the debt so we’re debt-free, whereas my argument would be that’s great, but maybe we should think about doing that once we’ve had a better attack on all these things.”
Clark acknowledged in an interview with Postmedia News that her government was a “bull in a china shop” on jobs and the economy, but should have moved sooner on social reforms.
She didn’t. The resulting throne speech was a mess that has damaged the credibility of Clark, de Jong and the Liberal brand. Now, the recriminations begin.
It’s always been up against: ‘Yeah, but we will do those things so long as we can afford them.’