Will proroguing Parliament hurt the Tories' political success?

[August1991]

Given how the anti-Harperites are frothing at the mouth because of this issue, we need a poll.

I happen to think that Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament will help him, and the Tories. My logic? Canadians (both French and English speaking) like savvy leaders. The most successful federal PMs (Macdonald, Laurier, King, Trudeau) were all leaders that used methods such as prorogation. I believe Trudeau prorogued parliament several times between 1974 and 1978, and he used even greater parliamentary subterfuges - without mention of the War Measures Act.

Trudeau had Allan MacEachen as House leader in his last term. Compared to MacEachen, Harper is a rank amateur when it comes to parliamentary tactics. (What too many media commentators forget is that federal politics is a tactical minefield. It is tactics that made the federal Liberals a successful party. Sadly, that's all the federal Liberals became.)

In any case, most Canadians don't know what prorogation is and so as a minimum, this will have no effect on Harper's success.

In the movie "The Princess Bride", a character says that no one won a land war in Asia. Well, I can say that no won a federal election over parliamentary procedure. Ask the ghost of Arthur Meighen.

----

So what do I think of this:

An Angus Reid poll released Thursday found that 53 per cent of Canadians disagree with Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament, while The Economist, an internationally influential magazine, weighed in with sharp criticism of Harper for "subjecting Parliament to prime-ministerial whim."

The poll found that 19 per cent agreed with the move and 28 per cent were undecided.

Toronto Star

But "83% of Canadians" (I invented that statistic) don't know what prorogation means. These polls are meaningless.

As for Harper's poll numbers, they go up and down too. But on balance, I think this decision to prorogue Parliament will make them move upward, in the long term. Harper looks like a smart, savvy guy. Canadians (French and English) like that in a leader.

Edited January 9, 2010 by August1991

[nicky10013]

It's going to hurt him in the short term but in the long term it's anyones guess. Every election has a ballot question. If the Opposition can make it about Harper, he's doomed.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[August1991]

If the Opposition can make it about Harper, he's doomed.

The Opposition (at the time) tried that against Macdonald, King and Trudeau. (All Canadian federal PMs are hated by a portion of the population.)

It worked in 1979 for Clark but then look how Trudeau's tactics defeated Clark.

I might as well repeat this again: It is impossible to succeed in Canadian federal politics without a refined talent for tactics.

Is Harper all tactics, all the time? No. Harper has an agenda.

Edited January 9, 2010 by August1991

[nicky10013]

Where did you pull 83% from? 60% said they knew what it was and 53 percent disagreed. Sure it makes him look smart to you, and I understand that. You have to be able to put yourself in the place of others. Sure he looks smart but then again no one in Canada thinks exactly like you or me. Frankly, it's the news cycle what matters. However long this story stays in the news is however long it hurts Harper for. Why does it hurt Harper? Despite your attempt to sugarcoat the numbers, the numbers themselves are horrible. On top of that you've got quotes from caucus members telling the press that "democracy isn't being sidestepped, just suspended." If the Liberals gain traction with their public roundtables on policy and present a viable alternative to the government, Harper is done. If Harper can run with these budget consultations and at least attempt to move on, then he stands a good chance of staying steady in the medium term. There's no doubting that he's going to get trashed in the week to come and likely until the day of protest until Januar 23rd.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[waldo]

I happen to think that Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament will help him, and teh Tories. My logic? Canadians (both French and English speaking) like savvy leaders.

oh ya - Harper's quite savvy! ... in how he rations his massive blunders over the parliamentary cycle. You know it's really bad when August trots out another lipstick on a pig thread!

[nicky10013]

The Opposition (at the time) tried that against Macdonald, King and Trudeau. (All Canadian federal PMs are hated by a portion of the population.)

It worked in 1979 for Clark but then look how Trudeau's tactics defeated Clark.

I might as well repeat this again: It is impossible to succeed in Canadian federal politics without a refined talent for tactics.

Is Harper all tactics, all the time? No. Harper has an agenda.

Macdonald, King and Trudeau had majority governments.

Edit: If he had an agenda we would've seen it by now. He ran last time with no platform. Everything of substance he's done this year has been forced on him by the opposition. The only thing of substance to come out of the tory caucus is a wedge crime bill that does absolutely nothing except make Harper look tough on crime. Where's his economic action plan? How is he going to handle the economy? For an economist, the only answer can't be "we're going to cut taxes." It doesn't work that way. Kevin Page of the PBO would tell you so, that you cutting taxes creates structural deficits. He would but Harper cut his budget.

Over the past year it has been NOTHING BUT tactics and politics. The man is clearly out of ideas and is trying to hang onto power as long as he can. If he did, he'd come back with an ambitious new agenda to spearhead and control the agenda. Considering he's going to do consultations with the public at large over the budget tells me it's just going to be more "steady as she goes" rhetoric with no real policy initiatives.

Edited January 9, 2010 by nicky10013

[August1991]

Macdonald, King and Trudeau had majority governments.

King and Trudeau both had minority governments. In fact, King arrived at power through a minority government. (He won an election ostensibly on parliamentary procedure but really about teh privilege of a British GG in a country newly filled with immigrants.) Aside from their personal lives, the comparison of King and Harper is remarkable. They were also both WASP PMs.

Macdonald never faced a minority government but he lost power, and then came back. Laurier, Canada's first French-speaking PM, never lead a minority government.

Edited January 9, 2010 by August1991

[nicky10013]

King and Trudeau both had minority governments. In fact, King arrived at power through a minority government. (He won an election ostensibly on parliamentary procedure but really about teh privilege of a British GG in a country newly filled with immigrants.) Aside from their personal lives, the comparison of King and Harper is remarkable. They were also both WASP PMs.

Macdonald never faced a minority government but he lost power, and then came back.

Just because they had minorities doesn't mean they didn't win successive majorities. I added more, you should take a look.

[August1991]

Where did you pull 83% from? 60% said they knew what it was and 53 percent disagreed.

I invented the number, which is about the same as a poll claiming that 60% of Canadians know what "prorogue Parliament" means.

Sure it makes him look smart to you, and I understand that. You have to be able to put yourself in the place of others. Sure he looks smart but then again no one in Canada thinks exactly like you or me. Frankly, it's the news cycle what matters. However long this story stays in the news is however long it hurts Harper for.

Nicky, Trudeau, King, Macdonald and Laurier all did stuff like this - far worse, in fact. King was a master tactician. Trudeau and Macdonald pushed the envelope. Laurier (my favourite) closed his eyes and signed the paper.

Canadian voters seem to like federal politicians who make Canada work. And at the federal level, it's all tactics.

This may come as a big surprise to some people, but such is Canada. We are a federal state.

[nicky10013]

I invented the number, which is about the same as a poll claiming that 60% of Canadians know what "prorogue Parliament" means.

Nicky, Trudeau, King, Macdonald and Laurier all did stuff like this - far worse, in fact. King was a master tactician. Trudeau and Macdonald pushed the envelope. Laurier (my favourite) closed his eyes and signed the paper.

Canadian voters seem to like federal politicians who make Canada work. And at the federal level, it's all tactics.

This may come as a big surprise to some people, but such is Canada. We are a federal state.

Ahahaha so you admit you invented the number because you're upset with what the poll says.

King was a master tactician? Aside from interning Japanese which I think we can all decry as horrible and I did mention it was one of our darkest day, what did King do that was so procedurally awful?

What did Trudeau do?

What did Laurier "just sign?" Like your original numbers, pretty much everything in this post is vapid; simply made up to entertain your personal biases.

[msdogfood]

it will bite them!!!

[ToadBrother]

All very lovely, but my challenge for any Harper supporters to provide a single citation to an event in modern Westminster history where a government to evade a confidence vote has pretty much left me listening to the wind through the trees. You can claim the 2009 prorogation was par for the course (though I'll say it isn't, there was a great deal left to the legislative agenda, but that's besides the point), the 2008 one still stands.

[August1991]

Ahahaha so you admit you invented the number because you're upset with what the poll says.

I didn't invent the number because I'm upset with the poll. I invented the number because I know that most Canadians don't know and don't care what "prorogue" means.

With that said, there are a small number of Canadians who know and care about the word "prorogation". These people tend to post on Internet forums, and listen to the CBC. They are not representative of Canadians. (In Quebec, these same people tend to live in Montreal's Plateau district.)

King was a master tactician?

Yes, he was. King was arguably a better tactician than Harper - but history will ultimately decide between the two. I suspect that Harper has some tricks up his sleeve.

BTW, if the federal Liberal Party has a reputation of inevitable power, it is due to Mackenzie King.

Edited January 9, 2010 by August1991

[nicky10013]

I didn't invent the number because I'm upset with the poll. I invented the number because I know that most Canadians don't know and don't care what "prorogue" means.

With that said, there are a small number of Canadians who know and care about the word "prorogation". These people tend to post on Internet forums, and listen to the CBC. They are not representative of Canadians. (In Quebec, these same people tend to live in Montreal's Plateau district.)

Yes, he was. King was arguably a better tactician than Harper - but history will ultimately decide between the two. I suspect that Harper has some tricks up his sleeve.

BTW, if the federal Liberal Party has a reputation of inevitable power, it is due to Mackenzie King.

Well Canadians might as well just not vote because you just know.

As for King and all the others, what did they do that was so bad?

[August1991]

What did Laurier "just sign?"

Immigration to Canada, under the rule of Clifford Sifton.

Wilfrid Laurier was the sole Catholic and sole French-Canadian in the federal cabinet of 1896. Such was the cost of a French-speaking Catholic federal PM. But Canada had one, within 30 years of Confederation.

Compared to so many other societies elsewhere in the world, we Canadians manage minority relations in a civilized manner. We have done it for centuries.

----

Returning to the point of the thread: Canada is not a country. Canada is a federal state. Canadian federal politics are about tactics. Harper seems to be a good tactician.

Canadian voters want such federal politicians.

[Sir Bandelot]

His reasons for proroguing do not convince me that it was necessary. Did they really need another vacation? Or was it due to something else

I pay their salary through my taxes, I expect them to work hard, real hard to serve this country. After they retire from politics they can all go on to millionaire-dom, and take fancy vacations.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

His reasons for proroguing do not convince me that it was necessary. Did they really need another vacation? Or was it due to something else

I pay their salary through my taxes, I expect them to work hard, real hard to serve this country. After they retire from politics they can all go on to millionaire-dom, and take fancy vacations.

On a nice little tax payer funded pension......

[capricorn]

Every election has a ballot question. If the Opposition can make it about Harper, he's doomed.

I think the media also plays a large role in the long term impact of Harper's move to prorogue. I am waiting for signs that the media is tiring of the current news cycle and looking for something else to talk about.

Consider this entry that somewhat reflects August's thoughts in his OP.

One argument you sometimes hear from Conservatives, though obviously not from Michael Ignatieff or his supporters, is that Jean Chrétien was not criticized for proroguing to avoid having to receive Sheila Fraser’s report on the sponsorship scandal. Conservatives also say that many of today’s critics actually respected him for his wiliness; some even cheered Mr. Chrétien’s toughness in shutting down the Somalia inquiry, which was investigating a far more serious matter than Afghan detainees. Conservative supporters may also be right in suspecting that—aside from those who dropped the ball back then—some of today’s critics grew comfortable in the one party state that Canada was becoming in the days of the “friendly dictator,” and detest Mr. Harper for restoring political competition to Ottawa.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/prorogation-jean-chrtien-did-it-too/article1425333/

Another thought. On last night's Power and Politics pundits made the point that this may be a lost opportunity for Ignatieff in that he is not leading the parade on the discontent manifested in some circles but is following the parade. In light of Ignatieff's press conference yesterday, where he said the public wants politicians to "tone it down", I tend to agree with those pundits.

A piece in the French media concludes that on the serious business of government the public opts for Harper over the other leaders, even in Quebec.

En une phrase, résumons: Michael Ignatieff est un intello distant et inaccessible, contrairement à Jack Layton, le «bon gars» proche du monde, mais lorsqu'il s'agit des choses sérieuses dans la gouverne du pays, c'est à Stephen Harper que l'on fait confiance.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/opinions/chroniqueurs/vincent-marissal/201001/09/01-937549-le-bon-lintello-et-le-serieux.php

(Google trans. "In one sentence, summarize: Michael Ignatieff is an intellectual remote and inaccessible, unlike Jack Layton, the "good guys" close to the world, but when it comes to serious matters in the governing of the country, Stephen Harper we trust".)

It's not prorogation that will affect Harper in the longer term. It's what he presents in the upcoming Speech to the Throne. By that time prorogation may be just a memory to most Canadians although those who despise and oppose him will try their mightiest to keep the matter alive.

[Argus]

All very lovely, but my challenge for any Harper supporters to provide a single citation to an event in modern Westminster history where a government to evade a confidence vote has pretty much left me listening to the wind through the trees.

Maybe you should have asked it a year ago when we were discussing that event. Since no one is discussing that event any more, nobody much cares about the question.

The question under discussion now is whether or not last month's event was "unprecedented" and it clearly wasn't

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Maybe you should have asked it a year ago when we were discussing that event. Since no one is discussing that event any more, nobody much cares about the question.

The question under discussion now is whether or not last month's event was "unprecedented" and it clearly wasn't

No it was not unprecedented. But Iggy needs to do something other than what the public is seeing right now.

[Sir Bandelot]

"In one sentence, summarize: Michael Ignatieff is an intellectual remote and inaccessible, unlike Jack Layton, the "good guys" close to the world, but when it comes to serious matters in the governing of the country, Stephen Harper we trust".

The fact that they open up with criticism about intellectualism, tells me all I need to know about that point of view.

[August1991]

The fact that they open up with criticism about intellectualism, tells me all I need to know about that point of view.

The article does not criticize Ignatieff because he is an intellectual, it criticizes him for being distant et inaccessible.

While I consider Jeffrey Simpson to be largely an old fuddy-duddy in an Internet world, the situation is so obvious that even he gets it:

It is somewhat difficult to fathom the sudden, albeit localized, hyperventilation over Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament.

The decision was completely Harperesque. It was perfectly consistent with who he is, how he sees politics and how he has previously behaved.

He is, above all, a partisan politician to the tips of his fingers. He will use any and all means within the law to achieve his political objectives. He does not like political dissent, and seeks to minimize it where and if possible.

He runs the most effective, best-financed political machine in the history of federal politics.

G&M

But then, being Simpson, he doesn't get it.

The most effective, best financed political machine in the history of federal politics was the federal Liberal party under King, St-Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau and Chretien.

You don't get to the top of the federal heap in Ottawa by being nice.

Edited January 9, 2010 by August1991

[capricorn]

The fact that they open up with criticism about intellectualism, tells me all I need to know about that point of view.

True, it's the pundit's global interpretation of the poll. Perhaps you'd be more interested in this result from the poll.

Le Parti conservateur aurait eu la faveur de 36% des répondants si des élections avaient eu lieu cette semaine, contre 29% pour les libéraux et 17% pour les néo-démocrates. Au Québec, 36% des Québécois auraient choisi le Bloc québécois, 26% les libéraux, 19%, les conservateurs et 11%, les néo-démocrates.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/201001/09/01-937564-dans-lisoloir-cest-harper.php

(Google trans. "The Conservative party would have had the favour of 36% of the guarantors so of the elections had taken place this week, against 29% for the liberals and 17% for the néo-democrats. In Quebec, 36% of the Inhabitants of Quebec would have chosen the Québécois Block, 26% the liberals, 19%, the conservatives and 11%, the néo-democrats".)

The poll was taken Jan.5 and 6, six days after prorogation was announced.

[Topaz]

I, for one, am glad the media is into this. I want to listen to ALL sides, even the Tories which I have and don't believe them. The opposition parties, the media and even the military which said at least, one Taliban was tortured leans more to the cover up than anything. This Tory government has been getting away with a lot of doings and I said about a year ago, give them enough rope and they will hang themselves and this could be it.Something seems to happen to people in power, the more they are given power they seem to feel they are unstoppable and can do whatever they want. Well, in Canada, Canadians won't stand for a power freak as PM, no matter what party are!

[Topaz]

Immigration to Canada, under the rule of Clifford Sifton.

Wilfrid Laurier was the sole Catholic and sole French-Canadian in the federal cabinet of 1896. Such was the cost of a French-speaking Catholic federal PM. But Canada had one, within 30 years of Confederation.

Compared to so many other societies elsewhere in the world, we Canadians manage minority relations in a civilized manner. We have done it for centuries.

----

Returning to the point of the thread: Canada is not a country. Canada is a federal state. Canadian federal politics are about tactics. Harper seems to be a good tactician.

Canadian voters want such federal politicians.

In one sentence....Harper acrossed the line!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!