Who is the greatest Prime Minister of all time?

[jbg]

My opinion, Paul Martin would have been one of the greats, but for the scandal that completely undermined him, and which I dare say, seemed to have everything to do with Jean Chretien.

Paul Martin was far better as a lieutenant than as a general. He was good at executing decisions, not making them.

And as for Sponsorship either he knew about it and was responsible or didn't know about it and was irresponsible.

[jbg]

You mean like the part about better transparency? Or the part about accountability,

He's fine in those departments.

or fixed election dates,

Could not possibly apply to minority governments since that would shift the balance of power decisively to the Opposition. The Opposition could basically trigger an election any time whereas the Government's hands would be tied. The fixed election law, if I'm not mistaken, has an exception for loss of confidence by the HOC. If the HOC demonstrates lack of confidence in all but name by gumming up the committees, are you saying the PM is powerless to take a walk to the GG?

or freedom of information, or...

No government can operate without the ability to have frank internal communications. Even the U.S. Supreme Court, in ordering the release of the Nixon Tapes, gave official recognition, for the first time, to executive privilege.

[Evening Star]

Wrong.

Pearson had a working majority; Liberals + CCF/NDP. Harper had to go to parties with opposing or incompatible views to prevent a confidence defeat on each bill. Do you consider either the NDP, the Liberals or the Bloc to have been reliable partners for the CPC?

I mean, you can't have it both ways: if you believe that the Liberals are a brokerage party (as I believe you've said before), then their 'views' are not fundamentally opposed to or incompatible with the CPC's; there's no reason why a Lib-Con alliance is less likely than a Lib-NDP alliance, especially if the CPC has more power. They seemed to work reasonably well as partners in the CPC minority Parliaments imo. If you really think that the Liberals hold views that are fundamentally opposed to the Conservatives', then they're not just a corrupt brokerage party at all: you're saying that they really have strong principles and values.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

(So my suspicion is that some conservatives actually believe the latter but claim the former in order to undermine the legacy that they hope to destroy.)

[CPCFTW]

My suspicion is that there is no reason for a majority government to compromise on the issues that you suggest Harper compromise with the liberals on.

My suspicion is that this is just more bellyaching that Harper has a majority government and is making full use of the power that our electoral process bestowed upon him.

My suspicion seems validated by the fact that you already suggested that Harper has adequately compromised during his minority governments.

[Evening Star]

I wasn't suggesting that he compromise with the Liberals on anything. That wasn't the point of my post.

[jbg]

I mean, you can't have it both ways: if you believe that the Liberals are a brokerage party (as I believe you've said before), then their 'views' are not fundamentally opposed to or incompatible with the CPC's; there's no reason why a Lib-Con alliance is less likely than a Lib-NDP alliance, especially if the CPC has more power. They seemed to work reasonably well as partners in the CPC minority Parliaments imo. If you really think that the Liberals hold views that are fundamentally opposed to the Conservatives', then they're not just a corrupt brokerage party at all: you're saying that they really have strong principles and values.

(So my suspicion is that some conservatives actually believe the latter but claim the former in order to undermine the legacy that they hope to destroy.)

Wrong on both counts. I do consider the Liberals a brokerage party. So, under Mulroney, was the CPCP.

The Liberals and Conservatives are the "normal" opponents of each other. As for your "minority CPC" governments, there are only three that have existed in modern times. One was Meaghan during the King/Byng affair; he lasted one confidence vote. Joe Clark didn't last much longer than that. The only other example was/is Harper and his usual voting partners were the Bloc or the NDP. The Liberals more often, from what I can recall, abstained.

Remember I'm watching from stateside so may not catch every confidence vote.

[CPCFTW]

(So my suspicion is that some conservatives actually believe the latter but claim the former in order to undermine the legacy that they hope to destroy.)

My mistake.. you had responded to a post which was a response to a post suggesting that Harper isn't as good of a leader as Pearson because he doesn't work with other parties as well. I guess the conversation has drifted away from that.

[prairiechickin]

I guess this poll rides on how one defines 'greatest'. Ya gotta love the old boozehound Macdonald for sheer tenacity in forging a nation, but that Pacific Scandal kind of tarnishes his image. I'm tempted to vote for Laurier -- he was a true statesman and did a pretty fine job keeping a lid on French-English tensions as a new country found its legs. We could use more like him. If it comes down to who left his greatest mark on the country though, its a toss up between King and Trudeau in my books. King just seemed to go on forever and was a master politician. For my money, its not just how you govern, but what shape you leave your party in when you retire from politics. He was in power for a long time, but the Liberals transitioned to St. Laurent seamlessly when he left. But to finally get off the fence, Trudeau gets my nod as the greatest. He had vision, was never afraid to make the tough, unpopular decisions, and he reset the Canadian compass away from the British-oriented first century, and toward the multicultural nation we are today.

Edited December 20, 2011 by prairiechickin

[Evening Star]

The Liberals and Conservatives are the "normal" opponents of each other. As for your "minority CPC" governments, there are only three that have existed in modern times. One was Meaghan during the King/Byng affair; he lasted one confidence vote. Joe Clark didn't last much longer than that. The only other example was/is Harper and his usual voting partners were the Bloc or the NDP. The Liberals more often, from what I can recall, abstained.

Clark's was a PC minority, not a CPC minority! They're two very different things in my mind. I'd forgotten about Meighen, actually. My reference to minority CPC governments was strictly a reference to Harper's two minorities. I tend to interpret the Liberals' abstentions as tacit support but ymmv.

Anyway, what I'll give you is that Douglas's NDP had no expectation of winning an election and heading a government so they had every incentive to work with the Liberals, despite any ideological differences. Despite the ideological ambiguity of the Dion/Ignatieff Liberals, they were clearly hoping to wrest power from the Conservatives and, as such, were probably not 'reliable partners' in the same way. So, ultimately, you're probably right but it's less an issue of having opposing views per se.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Evening Star

[jbg]

Clark's was a PC minority, not a CPC minority! They're two very different things in my mind.

Even though the CPC has many "Reform Party" aspects, I consider the pre-split (1987) and post-merger (2003) parties to be similar in the space those parties occupy on the spectrum.

I'd forgotten about Meighen, actually. My reference to minority CPC governments was strictly a reference to Harper's two minorities. I tend to interpret the Liberals' abstentions as tacit support but ymmv.

I don't know what "ymmv" means.

I would consider the "abstentions" as aversions to elections at those particular time. The Liberals could never be totally certain as to what the NDP and BQ were going to do so when the stars didn't line up right for an election and they thought the other parties might also vote negative, they abstained. As for using only the Harper governments, that's too small a sample size to be meaningful.

Anyway, what I'll give you is that Douglas's NDP had no expectation of winning an election and heading a government so they had every incentive to work with the Liberals, despite any ideological differences. Despite the ideological ambiguity of the Dion/Ignatieff Liberals, they were clearly hoping to wrest power from the Conservatives and, as such, were probably not 'reliable partners' in the same way. So, ultimately, you're probably right but it's less an issue of having opposing views per se.

Whatever the motives the result was the same. The Liberals, as the Official Opposition, could not really support much that the government did.

[Evening Star]

Even though the CPC has many "Reform Party" aspects, I consider the pre-split (1987) and post-merger (2003) parties to be similar in the space those parties occupy on the spectrum.

I'm sure Joe Clark would be thrilled to hear this. Also, does this mean that you consider Harper's CPC to be a brokerage party then??

I don't know what "ymmv" means.

"Your mileage may vary": you may disagree with my highly subjective interpretation.

I would consider the "abstentions" as aversions to elections at those particular time. The Liberals could never be totally certain as to what the NDP and BQ were going to do so when the stars didn't line up right for an election and they thought the other parties might also vote negative, they abstained. As for using only the Harper governments, that's too small a sample size to be meaningful.

Whatever the motives the result was the same. The Liberals, as the Official Opposition, could not really support much that the government did.

Fair enough.

[Wild Bill]

I'm sure Joe Clark would be thrilled to hear this. Also, does this mean that you consider Harper's CPC to be a brokerage party then??

I was active in Reform, as I've told you before, Star. So I had a close perspective. Up until after the Mulroney/Campbell government fell, both the Liberals and Conservatives were brokerage parties. That was the traditional style of Canadian politics! The problem was that by that time a significant portion of the electorate had become dissatisfied with that style. They had elected Mulroney expecting something different and then found, particularly after the CF-18 contract that was pork barreled to Quebec when Winnipeg had the clearly better bid, that he was the same as the old boss, only slicker!

That was what fueled the spectacular growth of the Reform Party, a growth unprecedented in our history!

Sadly, Harper's CPC HAS become somewhat of a brokerage party. The "powers that be" in the new party obviously felt that was the best way to win enough votes to achieve power. They put the old Reform support in the position of having no other choice and then appealed to the old PC support to get enough total votes to win.

Did you not notice how as soon as Harper took power there seemed to be a campaign to restore Mulroney's image? Mulroney had been Satan Incarnate to all those millions of Reformers! Now he was some kind of elder statesman, who Harper supposedly consulted with on frequent occasions!

Unfortunately for Mulroney and his old cronies, the Airbus scandal broke into the news and the idea of Mulroney being a hero died a flaming death.

I note there STILL isn't one vote for Mulroney in this thread's poll!

As for Clark, he ran the PCs at the end of their life, mostly because no one else wanted it! They were a tiny rump that was "walking wounded", slowly bleeding to death. They had no hope of ever again becoming a power, or perhaps even mustering enough seats to be a party!

There was a very simple reason for this. Not enough Canadians liked them enough to give them their vote! The PC Party was as popular as Athlete's Foot and about as hard to totally eradicate.

There is still a very strong desire for a new style of politics, even if there is no one championing it for which to vote. It was stifled during the Chretien era, since the Opposition was so badly splintered the Liberals at the time had no need to change. Then Harper came in but with only minority power, limiting any possibility of real change.

Now Harper has his majority but he seems to have become comfortable with the status quo. Those of us of the old Reform persuasion were constantly told "Keep the faith and vote for us! We can't do anything until we get a majority!". Well, he has his majority but it doesn't look like anything much different is going to happen.

I often have to laugh at the accusations and criticism from the Liberals and NDP supporters in this forum. They attack the CPC for its lack of "honesty" and "transparency". That was exactly what was wrong with the old politics! In effect, they've adopted those old Reform values,when they used to vilify Reform as some kind of fascist movement!

This shows that there is a pent up demand for change still out there. In Mulroney's day he and his advisers were well aware that there was a growing segment of the electorate wanting change but just like today, they thought that as long as they could make sure there was no alternative they didn't have to worry. That proved a disaster for them back then when Reform came on the scene. People starving for an alternative tend to jump for it! It could do the same today, given the same circumstances.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

Edited December 22, 2011 by Wild Bill

[na85]

I'm surprised that +30% of people are choosing Harper in this poll. What exactly has he done that's been "great"?

To my mind, his accomplishments include:

-being found in contempt of parliament

-defeating a series of weak Liberal opponents

-ending the long gun registry

????

[jbg]

Now Harper has his majority but he seems to have become comfortable with the status quo. Those of us of the old Reform persuasion were constantly told "Keep the faith and vote for us! We can't do anything until we get a majority!". Well, he has his majority but it doesn't look like anything much different is going to happen.

I wouldn't call restoring the former armed services and ending the long-gun registry inconsequential. Both are against the tide of political correctness that has swept the country since 1964. What were you expecting, the red ensign to be flying this afternoon on Parliament Hill?

I'm surprised that +30% of people are choosing Harper in this poll. What exactly has he done that's been "great"?

To my mind, his accomplishments include:

-being found in contempt of parliament

-defeating a series of weak Liberal opponents

-ending the long gun registry

????

How about restoring a tradition of responsible, professional government? And ending the fiasco of the long-gun registry is a major accomplishment, in my view.

[na85]

How about restoring a tradition of responsible, professional government? And ending the fiasco of the long-gun registry is a major accomplishment, in my view.

If our current government is what passes for responsible and professional these days, I weep for the future.

Edited December 23, 2011 by na85

[jbg]

If our current government is what passes for responsible and professional these days, I weep for the future.

I guess Sponsorship and Airbus are your cup of tea.

[Shakeyhands]

Harper is coming on fast.... Come on Booster Club!!!!

[bud]

I'm surprised that +30% of people are choosing Harper in this poll. What exactly has he done that's been "great"?

To my mind, his accomplishments include:

-being found in contempt of parliament

-defeating a series of weak Liberal opponents

-ending the long gun registry

????

no sh*t. it's the die-hard sports fan mentality.

oh and jbg and a few others here see harper's unlimited commitment to israel as something that trumps everything else.

Edited December 23, 2011 by bud

[WWWTT]

Actually a better thread would be who was Canadas wort prime minister!

Every PM Canada has had was either a liberal or some kind of variation of conservative so as far as I'm concerned they all had their head stuck halfway up the ass of corporations,Britain and/or the US!All crap!

Canadas best PM is yet to come when the NDP get in!Actually the worst NDP MP would still be 10 times better than any previous or standing Canadian PM!

Until then its all downhill!

WWWTT

[prairiechickin]

Actually a better thread would be who was Canadas wort prime minister!

WWWTT

My vote for the wort prime minister, I'd have to go with Sir Charles Tupper, he was only in power for such a short time, but he had the best worts of all.

[jbg]

Canadas best PM is yet to come when the NDP get in!Actually the worst NDP MP would still be 10 times better than any previous or standing Canadian PM!

Until then its all downhill!

Bob Rae's mandate in Ontario is a good precursor of what a (thankfully unlikely) NDP mandate in Canada would look like. Or maybe better yet the French Revolution.

[cybercoma]

Bob Rae's mandate in Ontario is a good precursor of what a (thankfully unlikely) NDP mandate in Canada would look like. Or maybe better yet the French Revolution.

There have been many NDP premiers in Canada before Rae and since Rae. Why would his stint as premier be a good "precursor", which I assume you mean indicator? You could have just as easily said, "Tommy Douglas's mandate in Saskatchewan is a good precursor of what a (thankfully unlikely) NDP mandate in Canada would look like." Except, Tommy Douglas is widely considered one of the greates Canadians of all time and his mandate in Saskatchewan was adopted by the federal government.

Edited December 24, 2011 by cybercoma

[WWWTT]

Bob Rae's mandate in Ontario is a good precursor of what a (thankfully unlikely) NDP mandate in Canada would look like. Or maybe better yet the French Revolution.

Yep!

If it wasn't for Bob Rae the recession in the 90's would have never happened at all and we would all be millionaires by now!

Good eye there jbg!

Brian Mullrooney/Reagen/Bush sr./corporations had absolutely nothing to do with the slowdown so God forbid anyone ever blame them!

And if you ever blame the conservatives for anything your a terrorist/commie sending jobs to China and helping the enemy and everything else you say is bad for the economy,thank God you will never get in power!

Oh and by the way every conservative PM was garbage!

Every liberal PM was guess what-Freekin crap!

Canada is the second largest(geographicly)country in the world!We are the richest in natural resources!But for some reason we are the smallest in the G8?Whos fault is that?Bob Rae?

Ya good eye buddy!

WWWTT

[Bryan]

The idea of an NDP federal government is quite possibly the most terrifying thing I can imagine. I've never been one to own guns, but that would probably inspire me to start stockpiling them.