On pressure points

Following up on last night's post about the problem with passing a budget which allows the Cons to determine how money will (or won't) be spent, it's worth noting that there's in fact an obvious precedent available where the Cons attempted to use the threat of not spending budgeted money as a political hammer.

Back in his first months in office, Harper decided to test the NDP by threatening to ignore spending allocated under the NDP's previous budget deal with the Libs:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper met with two veteran NDP MPs in February to discuss a deal to prop up his government for two years, according to a report by the Toronto Star.

The article, published Tuesday, said Harper met with Bill Blaikie and Libby Davies and promised in return to make good on the $4 billion budget deal negotiated with the Liberals last year.

...

Sources told the Star that the NDP turned down the offer. Instead, the party contacted groups counting on the cash to lobby the government to save the money included in the deal, which threatened to expire.

The money had to be allocated by March 31, or it would have automatically been used to reduce the federal debt, as set out under the provisions of a spending bill, known as Bill C-48.

Now, the NDP's response at the time was effective in getting the Cons to apply most of the money without the NDP ever propping up the Harper government. And it still strikes me as odd that the example of Jack Layton's success in standing up to Harper under those circumstances hasn't been followed more frequently by the other opposition parties.

That said, the incident should leave no doubt that the Cons are entirely willing to ignore the allocation of money which has already been approved within the federal budget where it suits their political purposes, or at least to pressure opposition parties based on that threat.

Which raises some important questions for the Libs in particular. If they decide to prop up Harper once again on the January budget, does anybody think that Deceivin' Stephen would have any scruples about gleefully using the subsequent allocation of money to once again twist the Libs' arms? And having backed down and kept Harper in power in order to get some stimulus approved, would the Libs have any choice but to capitulate on subsequent votes in a desperate attempt to get Harper to spend the money on anything even slightly related to economic recovery?

Of course, there's little doubt that the Libs will face plenty of pressure from the Cons and the establishment media to focus solely on the January vote, and to keep Harper in office if he shows even the slightest pretense of cooperation.

But taking any view which recognizes what will happen after a budget passes, it should be obvious that Harper could hardly hope for a better setup to once again force the Libs to their knees. And since we know that prospect will always rank above the good of the country among the Cons' priorities, there's every reason to make sure that Harper is removed from any position to keep manipulating the levers of power.