Throughout most of 2008 we observed Stephen Harper who badly wanted an election and Stéphane Dion who wouldn’t give him one.

Twenty one days into 2009 the message to both Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff is ‘careful what you ask for, you may get it.’ 

For those who believe economic stimulus is in order, the battle-lines have been drawn and on either side are tax cuts versus infrastructure spending. Conservatives are thought to be on the side of cutting taxes and Liberals aiming for government spending. This assumes, of course, that incurring large deficits is the solution to what’s going on globally, a direction in fiscal policy I have yet to be convinced is the path all should be taking. But that’s another post for another day.

There isn’t much question – at least not in my mind – about how Canadians and Canadian Business will react to federal government deficits resulting from a cut in taxes versus an increase in government [infrastructure] spending.

Ignore, for the moment, the rhetoric that Canadians can be stimulated into spending via tax cuts. When semi-seriously asked if a temporary elimination of the GST was put to the Prime Minister, Mr. Harper conceded a tax cut of that nature wouldn’t necessarily translate into a commensurate rise consumer spending. And in this particular environment, he’s right. Even an income tax cut at this particular juncture is unlikely to see its way into new forms of consumption. It would more likely go toward safekeeping or to paying down debt.

This is why, at least academically if not practically, Mr. Ignatieff happens to be on the right side of the stimulus argument insofar as infrastructure spending is concerned. If the assumption is correct, that the value of our economy, as measured by employment figures and gross domestic product, has diminished and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, then there is no doubt that directly as opposed to indirectly stimulating the economy will have a more noticeable short term impact.

But which strategy, traditionally, has more appeal in an election?

Mr. Ignatieff is right, that today selling Canadians on the idea of infrastructure spending would be a cakewalk compared with having to explain, let alone sell, Mr. Dion’s green [carbon-tax] shift. This is especially true given the dollars Barack Obama is about to unleash south of the border.

But Mr. Harper is also right that in an election it’s an easier campaign to navigate, stereotypically pitting Liberals as big-time deficit spenders, and the Conservatives as, well, something else.

Last year at about this time Mr. Harper knew what he wanted; an Environment vs. Economy showdown against an opponent who couldn’t argue, much less win, either discussion. Today, there is no disagreement about which problem is up for discussion, however there is certainly a competition among equals in terms of vision and solution.

For Mr. Harper, triggering an election next week wouldn’t be a difficult outcome to achieve given Mr. Ignatieff has pretty clearly drawn a line in the sand, and he isn’t likely to recoil into the Dion-like pattern of abstention regardless of how financially prepared or unprepared Liberals are for an election.

But Mr. Harper doesn’t so much recognize a line in the sand as he does a chasm into which he perceives more than ample opportunity to target both tax-cutting and government spending initiatives.

The “do some of both” strategy accomplishes three objectives. It gives those who favour economic stimulation something more significant to chew-on than what Conservatives didn’t announce last Fall, and it makes it more difficult for Mr. Ignatieff not to appear like he is splitting hairs. Third, it allows Mr. Harper to adopt either argument (tax cuts or infrastructure spending) should Mr. Ignatieff choose to call Mr. Harper’s election bluff.

My hunch is while both leaders would have reason to feel confident heading into an election, the outcome today is even less certain, and ever-changing, than we had heading into October.

Next week, look for Mr. Harper not to hand an election platform to Mr. Ignatieff on a silver platter and look for Mr. Ignatieff not to be in any hurry to wear the economic inevitability that lies ahead.