5 years of Harper: Your report card?

[Moonlight Graham]

Today marked five years that Harper has been PM (or at least won the first election). How would you grade the job he's done over this time? A+ ? F- ?

My hope is most of us can keep our scholarly hats on for this analysis and have it not dive into some typical partisan rants. But who am i kidding?!?

Edited January 24, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Smallc]

B+ I think. The government has been reasonably middle of the road, and has been very strong on certain issues, such as the economy. They aren't perfect, of course. There are perception problems that plague them.

[Guest TrueMetis]

They get the Maple reactors up and running and I'll give them an A until then they fail.

[Moonlight Graham]

B

Too much credit for our economy given to his gov, but he still deserves some credit, especially for not screwing it up. Cut the GST, which i liked at the time. Put in a clever childcare solution based on choice, and i'm completely against fully nationalized childcare. Afghanistan is a joke, but at least we're out soon. Loses points for being too manipulative of our Parliamentary system for selfish political gains (re: proroguing for BS).

Overall has done a good job of straddling the center, as smallc said.

*edit: changed my grade from a B+ to a B

Edited January 26, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[charter.rights]

He gets an E on human rights issues.

[Esq]

"D" no wait F changed it at 10.

Reasons:

1. Funneling resources out of Canada in military aquisitions where Canadian companies should have been used for these Billion Dollar deals. Remember Canada gets atleast a 30% rebate when it buys domestic.

2. Failure to manage the government books - this is the #1 responsibility of the government after public safety has been taken care of. - Debt increased by 25% of its previous value aquired over the last 100 years or more in 5 short years.

3. Wasted funds such as the G summits.

4. Horrible dead end 50 billion stimulus program that could have gone to small business starts ups or creation of long term industries or upgrading industries for no emissions robotics.

5. Ruined Canada's International Image in multiple diplomatic gaffs. (Shelving Kyoto to US mirrordome for instance)

6. Lied to Canadians about things like Afghanistan withdrawal. Censored war crimes from the public.

7. Shut down parliament multiple times to save his government, while killing democracy - all while spouting rhetoric over how "they" weren't democratic - yet "they" were the majority of the vote.

8. Was open to turning Canadian sovereignty over to the US by allowing the US military and Police to include Canada within its area of responsibility. This while giving all intelligence on Canadians criminal and otherwise to the Americans, even if just suspected but no credible evidence for a response. This is still on the table but you know how those cards will fall for the party of Canada as the 52nd state with no rights.

9. A program that funneled over $150 billion to the banks from the public tax purse - this was killed but only after more than $50 billion was funneled.

10. Fudging the books - statistics canada - "statistics don't matter", and "just who got all that stimulus money?" - how much of the money came back as taxes and government fees? --- Also shifting of "employment" to part time - and an unemployment rate that only counts people that are still looking for work at government employment centers - meaning Canada's unemployment rate as represented by full time jobs is MUCH higher than it actually appears.

11. Lower Health Standards ("Canadians don't need to exercise to be fit --- no wait we just need to be healthy or atleast not unhealthy - not being unhealthy is the goal not fitness."

12. 100 billion in defence spending tentative (but 50 Billion or more is all going to American companies - that is 1/5th of Canadian tax revenues in a year going to US companies as a type of tribute - since Canada only ever uses that equipment to help a US war)

13. Asset drain and foreign intervention - previously secure Canadian companies are now open to competition from foreign competitors, meaning although only a few internationals are in the field for things such as communication companies like mobile and satalite providers - this now makes Canadas com open to US mega com takeover. The top 10% of Canadian companies are now vunerable to takeover.

14. A willingness to give away strategic assets (potash corp for instance, US steel etc..) with only money as a deal cruncher. Canadians deserve more than just monetary protection, they need social protection, and a concrete deal on responsibilities that results in a TOTAL loss for the company if they breach that social contract.

15. The only federal departments to not be reduced for service provision have been security related. And billions more are going for prisons for unreported crimes. "4000 new employees" to deal with how many non reported criminals? How many gaurd per prisoner ratio is there ? Occupied Germany had something like a 1 to 10 ratio so are there 40,000 more prisoners? The size of a small town? If so, how much is that going to cost? With each prisoner costing $40,000 or more a year that works out to 40,000 low middle income government employees instead of unreported criminals. that is $1.6 billion bear in mind yes the G summits could have provided 40,000 people $40,000 jobs for a year, and these prisons could do the same. Yet a chunk of this unreported crime is probably caused by poverty that could be alleviated with 40,000 new jobs. Rather than 40,000 new prisoners.

16. Hasn't delivered on "electoral reform" lies and more lies -- oh no we won't put any non elected senator in the senate. LIE.

Harper could have called elections for each appointment to the senate, but he didn't, why? Because he wants his people in there, senate reform is just a lie to fool people who actually want it. He doesn't want it, he wants his man. His elected senate is the senate he elects with his 1 vote.

17. The Canadian government hasn't done anything noteworthy or special or exceptional under the goverment. They are good at rule lawyering to their advantage, using archaic non democratic principles of government. Canada has fell back to be a back water mediocrity under the administration, a US lapdog at best.

Summary: More debt more lies, delivering nothing to Canadians, but lower taxes for an absence of services. Money shifting to militant organizations to assist US wars, all while giving less to Canadians. That is the last 5 years.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Esq

[M.Dancer]

C+

Room for improvement on just about every issue except human rights. I agree with CR...E for excellent.

[Shwa]

Well, with reviewing Esq's 17 point crunch above, I would rate Harper as a 'C.' Could have been better, could have been worse. Needs to pay more attention in class and not get distracted. Needs to attend more.

Otherwise, we won an Olympic Gold in Vancouver over the USA on an OT goal by none other than Sid the Kid (remember that? WOW!!)

So, really, if it wasn't for that I would say 'C minus.'

[Michael Hardner]

C... I didn't vote for them, so I'm glad that they haven't actually been conservative.

On the other hand, their constant sabre-rattling on social issues is tiresome.

If they restructure government services, I may indeed support them in the future.

[Wild Bill]

I'll give him a C. He passes, but nothing especially noteworthy.

The real problem is, he's boring! It's just that the others are either less competent or MORE boring!

You know, a good sex scandal might actually be good for him! Canadians would probably like him MORE!

[Molly]

I can't go better than a D- because the only thing I can honestly give them credit for is for not being as destructive as I feared. It is possible for them to be worse. Thank God they have been kept in minority.

They've been given all sorts of wholly undeserved credit for our economic situation; have done their damnedest to undermine our parliamentary system from every angle; have been secretive and sneaky and partisan about.... everything. They practice a day-to-day mean-mindedness, and when given a chance to choose between blind, irrational assumption and fact-based analysis, choose the former every single time. They are anti-inellectual; anti-science and have displayed an open hostility even to the gathering of information, much less of letting it guide their actions.

I am a fiscal conservative and a former Conservative partisan, but this bunch frightens and embarrasses me. This isn't Diefenbaker or Stanfield/Clark conservatism. This isn't even Mulroney conservatism.

[Keepitsimple]

I'll give them a C+.......I like the work that Jason Kenney is doing.

[Esq]

Where are the acheivements?

[Bob]

The only thing I really like about him and his government is that they are unapologetically supportive of the Jewish people's basic rights in Israel. They don't play the moral relativity game and draw false moral equivalencies. They do, however, give money and aid the the PA and other Palestinian associations, which necessarily funds terror. Although less important, I am not entirely convinced that the Harper government's pro-Israel stance is rooted in principle and morality, and suspect that part of it is aimed at appealing to the Jewish vote in Canada which is traditionally and overwhelmingly supportive of the Liberal Party.

Still, I don't see Harper as a strong or charismatic PM with the ability to lead. We need a leader who can draw support when needed. I don't see Harper as more of a leader than he is a follows.

He also hasn't made serious changes in areas that need serious changes - most notably Health Care. Perhaps this is inevitable, but we have many wasteful social programs ongoing that he isn't halting - reinforcing my perspective that he is at least as much a prisoner of politics (don't upset the leftists) as he is a leader. At the same time, we know that Canada is a left-leaning country and it tends to be difficult for a Conservative leader to do well in a country like this. On the other hand, I cling to hope that a charismatic, legitimately conservative leader will rise up and LEAD this country.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

I'll give them a C+.......I like the work that Jason Kenney is doing.

It was great when they denied that vile George Galloway. Hopefully Jason Kenney is serious about what he says he wants to do, which is get more serious about immigration overhaul. Still, I wish he's be more bold - why not have a basic questionnaire for all potential new immigrants that asks serious questions? Reject all immigrants who are openly anti-democratic, reject all immigrants that have poor English and poor education, reject all seriously diseased immigrants, reject all immigrants that have more children than they can afford, etc, etc.

All I remember from Jason Kenney was the new immigration-pamphlet. Sadly, such a small move was met with heated opposition from Canada's strong leftist establishment.

[PIK]

Where are the acheivements?

The north, our military now has the resourses to go some where and actually help out. Saved us a pile of money, by staying away from kyoto boondoggle, the daycare boondoggle, and the kelowna accord. Saved the country from the greedy coalition, since it all boiled down to the $2.00 vote. Trying to put the breaks on the never ending immiration problems,peace with quebec(so far) peace with the other provinces(only the odd skirmish) and according to the AG spent the stimuli money resposible, we all know what would have happened if all the money was spent under a lib goverment. And for once we have a foriegn policy a real one, not a back both sides liberal policies ,which you can't have a foriegn policy by alway backing both sides. And of course he has made mistakes, but his mistakes do not cost the country billions with huge grand plans , he lives in a real world where you have to take it slow and steady. And he was just a breath of fresh air, instead of the same old liberal rot. Edited January 24, 2011 by PIK

[Evening Star]

Are we supposed to grade how effectively he has achieved what he set out to do or how good his policies are, according to our own ideological perspectives? If I were actually grading a paper, I would approach it from the former angle. I'm guessing, though, that you want a mix?

So I'm leaning towards a B-, maybe a C+. It's a challenge to keep a minority government together and maintain popular support and the government has been successful with these things. They have, on balance, governed moderately and pragmatically and avoided significantly antagonizing any regions. I'm not sure how much credit they deserve for our economic strength but they have at least not done anything to damage it in the short term and have managed it reasonably. However, I do not favour cutting taxes any lower and I tend to feel that they have already been cut too deeply to maintain public services and institutions in the long term.

On the downside imo: proroguing Parliament twice for seemingly crass reasons, keeping Canadians in an imo quixotic mission in Afghanistan where we have been complicit in Afghan war crimes, showing open contempt for Parliament and the Constitution when it came to releasing documents about the Afghan detainee issue, lack of leadership on climate change, demonstrating contempt for empiricism by scrapping the long-form census, placing unreasonable restrictions on what public-sector scientists can tell the media, earmarking SSHRC funding for business-related degrees, making it harder for people to protect their Charter Rights by cutting the Court Challenges Program.

[Keepitsimple]

It was great when they denied that vile George Galloway. Hopefully Jason Kenney is serious about what he says he wants to do, which is get more serious about immigration overhaul. Still, I wish he's be more bold - why not have a basic questionnaire for all potential new immigrants that asks serious questions? Reject all immigrants who are openly anti-democratic, reject all immigrants that have poor English and poor education, reject all seriously diseased immigrants, reject all immigrants that have more children than they can afford, etc, etc.

All I remember from Jason Kenney was the new immigration-pamphlet. Sadly, such a small move was met with heated opposition from Canada's strong leftist establishment.

This is one area that won't get much movement without a majority. As you mentioned, even small changes bring about cries of intolerance from the usual suspects. I think the vast majority of Canadians would agree that if you lie or cheat to get into Canada - or commit crimes as soon as you are here....then we should have a swift but fair method of booting their butts out of the country.

[Evening Star]

Also oppose: Cutting CIDA funding for initiatives that include access to safe and legal abortions, increased public funding for Bible colleges.

xpost So maybe this is a C?

Edited January 24, 2011 by Evening Star

[DrGreenthumb]

F- Harper is the worst Prime minister in our history.

[Molly]

But Evening Star, the things you are giving credit for are things he was forced to do under threat of being tossed out. He had to govern very moderately, on eggshells, without offending anyone, because he headed an unpopular minority government. (Mind you, I wouldn't call Newfoundland 'no one'.)

What's more, not only does he not deserve credit for 'our economic strength', no credit is due for doing no harm, either. That deficit is a whopper- unnecessarily.

PIK did mention one I forgot, though. This government has taken note of the North without anyone holding them by the scruff of the neck to rub their noses in it. They haven't done much about it, and given the issues currently arising, any party would take note, but they do appear to have some interest in it, voluntarily.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would rate Harper no better than a "C". No big surprise one way or the other really. An absolutely forgetable PM.

[Bob]

This is one area that won't get much movement without a majority. As you mentioned, even small changes bring about cries of intolerance from the usual suspects. I think the vast majority of Canadians would agree that if you lie or cheat to get into Canada - or commit crimes as soon as you are here....then we should have a swift but fair method of booting their butts out of the country.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I feel this tension is true on most issues. Perhaps I focus too much on the most passionate vitriol from all sides, but I get the impression that the leftist establishment will oppose virtually anything from the Harper camp simply because it is coming from the Conservative Party.

I certainly agree with you with regards to removing bad elements from our society that arrive here through immigration. We need to be more stringent and tough about demanding that immigrants adhere to basic core values. Can you imagine the outrage that would come from the left if we began to question would-be Muslim immigrants about their perspectives of, for example, honour-killings or women's rights?

Edited January 24, 2011 by Bob

[Esq]

The north

I don't see how melting tons of ice is really an acheivement, especially if it means more forest fires in the south.

, our military now has the resourses to go some where and actually help out.

You can think this but the Canadian military is barely a handful of divisions compared to the US military. Canada can't even credibly defend its own infrastructure at home. It is mostly undefended, then you say we can go wage wars? Against who? Has anyone attacked Canada? We don't even know who blew up the world trade centre - no one has gone to justice that wasn't an American Citizen or Resident. The only links are US and British Intelligence assets.

Saved us a pile of money, by staying away from kyoto boondoggle, the daycare boondoggle, and the kelowna accord.

Canada lost billions. It could have invested in production of the technologies needed to implement Kyoto and exported it, the "better technology" movement is catching steam, it is just who leads it. Now Canada has to buy foreign patents for technology it could have secured for itself. Instead now you have a despoiled environment in places like Alberta where wildlife and humans are at increased risk of disease and ill health. Daycare would have been good by opt in/opt out. that is if there was enough interest in an area. Now in places like Ontario we have the provincial governments doing it, so in those areas like Ontario, they are loosing out on the federal support. Daycare is really important for Urban areas where both parents work. Organized day care is an efficient economic sollution. While it doesn't work everywhere, it would have helped a lot in some places, improving productivity - something that is badly lacking in Canada. How is improving the education, employment, and living conditions for Aboriginal peoples not a good thing? Some aboriginal communities are living in second world conditions or worse. We should address poverty in Canada whether it is in the cities or in reserves. The quality of life of Canadians should matter. I find your basis for saying a success in enhancing poverty in Canada is a false premise.

Saved the country from the greedy coalition, since it all boiled down to the $2.00 vote.

nonsense talk. They didn't want to force an election, they were for saving Canadians 250 million dollars, not getting 2$ votes.

Trying to put the breaks on the never ending immiration problems

By speeding up the process, and appealing to violent immigrants who support militarism?

according to the AG spent the stimuli money resposible

According to you, how was their spending on throw away projects that caused massive debt load to municipalities on unneeded projects "responsible"?

we all know what would have happened if all the money was spent under a lib goverment.

Canada can't afford to spend all that money to begin with. It was borrowed money. It was unearned money.

And for once we have a foriegn policy a real one

Making enemies isn't "good" foereign policy. It is damaging Canada's future and limiting freeness of travel.

, not a back both sides liberal policies ,which you can't have a foriegn policy by alway backing both sides.

Its nice not to have enemies you don't need.

And of course he has made mistakes, but his mistakes do not cost the country billions with huge grand plans

No they cost billions many many billions. But no grand plan, just lost money.

[Evening Star]

But Evening Star, the things you are giving credit for are things he was forced to do under threat of being tossed out. He had to govern very moderately, on eggshells, without offending anyone, because he headed an unpopular minority government. (Mind you, I wouldn't call Newfoundland 'no one'.)

Still, he managed to do it, while keeping his party and base together. I mean, I'm grading on a scale where a C means basic technical competence, comprehension of the assignment, and acceptable effort. An F would require something like the Watergate scandal. Bush's second term might get a D-.

I'm also grading him relative to his peers.

What's more, not only does he not deserve credit for 'our economic strength', no credit is due for doing no harm, either. That deficit is a whopper- unnecessarily.

I don't entirely disagree but deficit spending during a recession is not unjustifiable in itself. I'm sceptical of the way it was done, and we'll have to see how it plays out in the long run, but it's not an obviously failed economic policy so far.