Too harmful

The Libs' choice of triggers for an election on the Cons' upcoming budget - that they'd vote the budget down only if it was "too harmful" to the economy - was at best an odd one on its face. (Why would Dion feel the need to change from his previous message of deciding based on whether he thought Canadians wanted an election, or decide that only one of the "three pillars" which seemed so important to his leadership campaign matters enough to justify an election now?) But the choice may be even worse than it looks if the Libs decide to once again prop up the Cons...and I have to wonder whether that signals a complete lack of foresight, or instead a plan to vote down the budget.

In figuring out what the Libs have done with their choice of messages, remember that their most plausible excuse for a strategy at this point is to try to contrast themselves against the Cons in terms of the the parties' respective fiscal management. Ideally, that would culminate in an election taking place in the middle of a recession which the Libs could pin on Harper and Flaherty.

From that starting point, it would only make sense to try to avoid directly approving of the Cons' economic management. But with no provocation whatsover, the Libs have put themselves in a position where any choice to avoid the polls has to be based on their publicly stating that the Cons' budget isn't going to do much damage. And however the economy turns out in the meantime, that end result would limit the Libs' ability to gain any traction on economic management.

After all, if the economy doesn't hit a downturn, then the hoped-for benefit would never materialize...leading to no gain at best, and probably some cost if the Cons make an argument that the Libs have endorsed their fiscal management.

And that's the better of the two results: if the economy does plunge into a recession, a vote in support of the Cons now would completely undermine the Libs' planned message.

Having publicly declared that the Cons' plan wasn't one which would trigger any economic hardship, the Libs would have little defence to an argument that the Cons either couldn't be blamed for the downturn, or at worst shared responsibility with the Libs themselves. And the NDP would have a field day pointing out that neither the Libs nor the Cons were responsible enough to foresee the dangers arising out of the Cons' budget.

In effect, if the Libs end up voting for the budget, they'll be in exactly the same position as they are on Afghanistan in the wake of the post-Manley machinations, having undercut their own ability to criticize Harper's performance while giving the NDP a golden opportunity to paint the other two parties as twins. But this time Harper won't even be able to take credit for maneuvering the Libs into a corner, as they'll have done it all by themselves.

Now, it's not out of the question that the Libs' choice of election triggers could be a successful one. If the Libs actually do plan on voting down the budget, then there could be little better way to set the stage for an election based on economic decision-making than by spreading the message that they had to vote down the government due to an impending downturn caused by Harper. That would allow the Libs to run their campaign on the theme that tough Tory times are coming, creating a background assumption that the Cons are only making things worse and turning any damaging economic news during the campaign into a boon for the Libs.

Based on Dion's track record, however, it's hard to give he and his entourage credit for thinking up that possibility - particularly with the Libs making noises that they're planning on sitting out yet another confidence vote. And if the Libs are indeed sufficiently clueless to have voluntarily given up what looks like their best issue for absolutely no gain, then there's little reason to think they'll ever get their act together in time for an election.

(Edit: filled in first paragraph.)