I want the Mulroney Tax Plan

The Globe & Mail has an article this morning called "Mulroney's six-year tax gap" about how the former PM didn't find it necessary to report his $225 000 in cash from Schreiber for some six years. Mulroney apparently didn't think it necessary to pay taxes on his Schreiber money until the latter was charged. Until then he had considered it as money for covering lobbying expenses, not income. What if Schreiber hadn't been charged? Uhhh:

When asked when he would have paid the tax had Mr. Schreiber not been charged with fraud, tax evasion and bribery in relation to military deals and political contributions in Germany, Mr. Mulroney replied, “I don't know the answer to that.”

So he did it because Schreiber was in trouble? Otherwise it was money for expenses? This strikes me as the action of a guilty conscience. If this was really money designed to cover expenses, there would have been no need to pay tax on it. But once Mulroney saw that Schreiber was in trouble, he got nervous. Or something. It doesn't make sense and all of Mulroney's righteous indignation cannot change that.

He's Baaaaack

All through the 1990s I remember there was this sort of understanding (at least among people I talked to - there were no blogs, alas) that any party with "conservative" in the name was made radioactive to too many people because of the spectre of Mulroney. There has been some re-evaluation of the man, hell, even Jason Cherniak seems positively sympathetic to him now.

Still, I think it is worth remembering the visceral hatred this man engendered in so many Canadians by the end of his second term. Some polls had his popularity at 4%! You think Dion has problems? The reality is, if Mulroney and his record are dragged back into the spotlight, there's a good chance that some of that anger at him will come roaring back. It doesn't matter that Chretien and Martin largely continued the two policies that made the man hated (free trade and the GST), there was something about Mulroney himself that people just reviled by 1993.

If this anger does come back because of Mulroney's reappearance in the Canadian political spotlight, Harper had better watch out for the halo effect it will have on his party.

The debate's on, but my expectations are low

The media, as usual, hems and haws about the importance of a debate in a campaign. Yet there's only been one "knock-out" debate in my lifetime. You know it, Brian Mulroney's "You had an option, sir" line. Video of that moment is here.

Jealousy, thy name is Mulroney

Everyone is talking about Mulroney's rather nasty attack on Pierre Trudeau. The irony of this is that it shows why Mulroney will be remembered in the same way that Trudeau is. What sort of petulant little man would unleash this sort of tirade on a deceased former Prime Minister? I suspect that Mulroney hates how Trudeau is a national icon while he is viewed as a mediocre prime minister at best (if not still outright hated). Mulroney must ponder why his fellow-traveler, Ronald Reagan was so well loved by so many in the US, and why an ideological opponent is so well loved here.

These sorts of stupid outbursts reveal the brittle high opinion Mulroney has of himself, something he can only maintain through the slagging of others.

History Lessons: Mulroney Edition

Stephen Harper has just delivered a windfall to Quebec. A windfall that will be converted to tax breaks by Jean Charest (assuming he wins). Let's go back in time 15 years or so: Why was Mulroney so hated by the end of his tenure as Prime Minister? Well there were lots of reasons, certainly his arrogance, his buddy-buddy relationship with US Presidents, but one of the things that really boiled blood in Canada was his perceived softness on Quebec.

I suppose maybe a Calgary-based guy like Harper can get away with some Quebec gifts (Nixon to China, blah blah) but I think he'll really be on thin ice if he's seen as being too nice to soft nationalists in Quebec.