I wouldn't count Iggy out just yet. One of the faults of Harper is the overconfidence and then a really brainless move that will cost him a lot of support. And I'm going to predict some nice missteps on his part in the next year. When I start to see the conservative start to really beat the drums, that's a sure sign.
No Iggy won't want an election for a while, if he were smart, he'd let Harper dangle for at least another year. If he were smart that is.
Harper would not be the first leader in history prepared to enhance his own power by hiding the savaging of his country’s system of government behind the laurels of young athletes.
And, well put:
Quote:
Just don’t blame the large majority of Canadians who continue to have the sense to reject Harper and his boys, medals notwithstanding. Yes, Canadians care about the economy, the environment, and the prisoner abuse scandal. They are concerned about the reputation of their country in the rest of the world. Give them a way to rid themselves of Harper in the next election and the people will do the rest.
__________________
.
Last edited by groovetube; Jan 2nd, 2010 at 09:05 AM.
OTTAWA
No one should be more concerned about this Prime Minister's controlling methods than Conservatives. Power so expediently abused in high office becomes a cruel constraint when an election is inevitably lost.
Stephen Harper understood that in opposition. As a Reformer he preached the gospel of parliamentary primacy. As a Conservative leader using memories of ethical failures from the Chrétien era to defeat Paul Martin, Harper promised, hand over heart, to restore accountability.
That, of course, was then. Now the Prime Minister is singularly dominating national affairs. As a new year begins, there will be no one here to ask annoying questions about war and spending or distract attention from the modern Roman circus of Olympic Games.
No watchdogs will howl at how Canadians are being denied the right to know what the ruling party is doing in their name and with their money; what generals and ministers aren't saying about Afghanistan prisoner torture or how an unreformed RCMP polices much of the country without civilian oversight.
If there is a zone, a sweet spot, in federal politics, Harper is at its epicentre. Cabinet is a rubber stamp, party principles are sacrificed to pragmatism without much protest, and there's no credible alternative to threaten Harper's hegemony or test a Conservative agenda.
Other prime ministers have explored the open space created by Parliament's shrinkage. Pierre Trudeau, who began the concentration of power among whispering loyalists, snapped "just watch me" when asked how far he would go to control the 1970 October Crisis. Brian Mulroney Tories created the wink-and-nudge contracting system that Liberals elevated into the Quebec sponsorship scheme. Jean Chrétien became known as a more or less friendly dictator during three consecutive majorities.
Harper is still pursuing a first majority. Meanwhile he's constructing a bold new edifice on his predecessor's suspect foundations.
Systematically, and without explanation, the Prime Minister is testing every limit on his power. Along with successfully shuttering Parliament for the second time, he's neutering committees charged with the primary democratic responsibilities of safeguarding the treasury and forcing the government to explain its actions. He's challenging independent rulings against how Conservatives funded their 2006 election and how this government treats Canadians in trouble abroad.
Politics is an uncompromising blood sport played to win within loose rules. By learning Liberal dirty tricks, adapting to changing circumstances and reinterpreting every regulation in his favour, Harper is proving to be a shrewd and accomplished contestant.
Far less clear is what he accepts as legitimate constraint, the line in the democratic sand not to be crossed.
Last year ministers threatened to go over the head of the de facto head of state if Governor General Michaëlle Jean allowed a coalition of "Liberals, socialists and separatist" to use their Commons majority to topple his minority. This winter Harper is essentially making the argument that Parliament is getting in the way of his government governing.
Come spring or fall, there will likely be another election, one that might well interfere with what the Prime Minister has in mind and could, if experience is a prognosticator, lead to yet another response outside the boundaries of shared Canadian experience.
Whatever happens in the coming months, one reality is inescapable. In taking politics to a different, hyper-controlling and partisan level, the Prime Minister is creating a dangerous legacy his successors will gratefully accept before turning it to their benefit.
Even if Conservatives are more comfortable than other Canadians with Harper's dark democracy, they along with the rest of us should be very afraid of what will happen when, as it will, the political worm turns.
__________________ Spring Cleaning Sale email for flyer..sweet prices across the board • Many Retina's, Airs, new iMacs all on sale - great • OWC at par Trades welcome
I was just about to post thet MacDoc. I like Travers. You get the sense he's not playing politics. Which is exactly what Harper wants us to do. Delay and distract.
Generally I think this is a balanced overview. However, I disagree that Harper is creating a "dark and dangerous legacy for democracy".
As Travers accurately points out Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien all ruled with iron fists as well (albiet at times perhaps more hidden in a velvet glove). The difference is that they all ruled under majority Parliaments so it was much, much easier for them to get their way, they had a defacto dictatorship to rule from.
With Harper, because he is ruling in a minority Parliament and thus does not have the same luxuries built into his rule, he must make use of every little bit of Parliamentary procedure allowed him to "get his way". I do not believe this to be surprising or creating a "dark and dangerous legacy for democracy". If anyone thinks for a moment that if Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien or any other savvy political leader in this country ruling in a minority government would not also take advantage of every means available to them to control Parliament, maintain power and push through their political and legislative agendas they are simply politically naive and dreaming in Technicolor.
Last edited by screature; Jan 2nd, 2010 at 10:39 AM.
good article. Of course, we'll begin to hear about how previous PMs have done this and worse, somehow erasing this. The screams of better! more accountable! really ring hollow now. Which is a point many conservative supporters will just never admit. (or liberals for that matter).
Generally I think this is a balanced overview. However, I disagree that Harper is creating a "dark and dangerous legacy for democracy".
As Travers accurately points out Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien all ruled with iron fists as well (albiet at times perhaps more hidden in a velvet glove). The difference is that they all ruled under majority Parliaments so it was much, much easier for them to get their way, they had a defacto dictatorship to rule from.
With Harper, because he is ruling in a minority Parliament and thus does not have the same luxuries built into his rule, he must make use of every little bit of Parliamentary procedure allowed him to "get his way". I do not believe this to be surprising or creating a "dark and dangerous legacy for democracy". If anyone thinks for a moment that if Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien or any other savvy political leader in this country ruling in a minority government would not also take advantage of every means available to them to control Parliament, maintain power and push through their political and legislative agendas they are simply politically naive and dreaming in Technicolor.
I agree with your assessment 100%.
I'm always pointing out that it IS a minority. It's just that the opposition is incapable of offering a viable alternative and have resorted to dragging the other guy down. (I was always taught that you don't raise yourself up by putting others down, but I think our politicians have forgotten this.)
So much of the rhetoric is of the 'FUD' variety: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
Instead of demonizing Harper I would like the left to present a viable alternative. But they don't. And so it will continue.
__________________
"Without ambition one starts nothing. Without work one finishes nothing." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
I think this should be troubling to Canadians of all stripes. The erosion of checks and balances is unsettling to say the least.
I have no problem with skewering the Liberals in regards to their use of this tactic. I am not into blind worship whatsoever. They used it to their advantage to cover up, delay and generally make the issues 'go away'. Meet the new boss...
In the case of Harper though, it's different (and I attempt to say this as totally non-partisan as I can). He emerged from the Reform Party ooze and successfully morphed himself into the mainstream. The trusted brand of the Progressive Conservatives now assimilated with fringe party that would have NEVER become the acting Government. We can't even get the tried and true NDP to that position but that's another story.
Then came the promises: Openness! Accountability! Transparency! Hogwash. Harper is and has been in campaign mode since he darkened Parliament's door. He wants nothing of openess or accountabilty, he wants his majority full stop.
I believe Harper's Reform and subsequent Nation Citizen's Coalition roots are more telling of who the man is. Once he holds a majority, we will definitely find out. I for one am not willing to take that chance.
He has masterfully integrated himself into the preceived political mainstream. Just the merger of the two parties alone bought him many vote and support from dyed in the wool Conservatives. Many of who wouldn't touch Reform with a 10 foot pole. This has served him well. Although he still misses that Majority that should be his for the taking, why is that?
I believe the majority of Canadians don't trust Harper, even if they voted for him. Even though he has made all the right moves his past and present continue to haunt him. Little slip ups here and there. Things that I'm sure, from what I've read of the man, throw him into a rage and he clamps down even further on communication, openess and accountability. He appears power mad and I'm afraid of what he'll do with that power once he has it.
This current proroguing seems like a harbinger of what's to come. To not address the detainee issue is disgraceful for one whose entire platform was based on accountability. It was disgraceful for the Liberals when they were in power as well. So does this make him as bad?
I was sad when Harper and MacKay disbanded the PCs. They, like all good Canadian political parties were moderate, adding to the political balance of our great country. What we have know I believe isn't. But we won't know for sure until it's too late.
The Prime Minister had a very good 2009, blending policy successes with bare-knuckle political fisticuffs that left one opposition politician after another reeling.
His decision to prorogue Parliament for pretty much the rest of the winter has pundits and constitutional experts howling. Well we should howl. Shutting down the House and Senate for the second time in one year makes a mockery of Parliamentary government.
But prorogation leaves the Conservatives with a clear field and this Prime Minister with a deserved reputation as the most capable manager of minority government since Lester Pearson nearly half a century ago.
...whether Conservative cabinet ministers were negligent in protecting detainees from being abused by their Afghan jailors appears to be, for most Canadians, a quibble. Despite weeks of embarrassing revelations last autumn that left Defence Minister Peter MacKay thrashing in a morass of self-created contradictions, polls continue to show the Conservatives solidly in front of Michael Ignatieff's Liberals....
A survey released this week by Nanos Research has the Tories 10 points ahead of the official opposition and Mr. Harper's approval rating double that of Mr. Ignatieff's. The numbers suggest that the Conservatives would be foolish to seek an election, and the Liberals suicidal to force one.
Mr. Ignatieff is no more popular than his predecessor, Stéphane Dion, who must be counted the most unsuccessful leader in the history of the Liberal Party.
With a relentless campaign of attack ads against Mr. Ignatieff – “Just Visiting” – the Tories appear to have been as effective in damaging his brand as they were previously in diminishing Mr. Dion.
As the article points out, there are issues that could pillory Harper in the future, but for now he's doing fine and Canadians are generally happy with him.
Uh, you'd better count him out. From the story above:
Quote:
Mr. Ignatieff is no more popular than his predecessor, Stéphane Dion, who must be counted the most unsuccessful leader in the history of the Liberal Party.
Spring Cleaning Sale email for flyer..sweet prices across the board • Many Retina's, Airs, new iMacs all on sale - great • OWC at par Trades welcome
Linear Mode
