Why Harper Fails

[August1991]

Harper to the Fraser Institute in Calgary 29 April 2005:

Speaking at a luncheon hosted by the right-of-centre Fraser Institute, Harper said a plan to gut medicare, floated recently by former Reform party leader Preston Manning and former Ontario premier Mike Harris, was both naïve and misguided.

Manning and Harris say the federal government should kill the Canada Health Act, the federal law governing medicare, and withdraw almost completely from the health field.

"I could not imagine a proposal that's more of a non-starter than that one," Harper said yesterday.

He acknowledged that free marketeers in the mainly business audience might not like his new position on health care, but said that political realism demanded it.

"There is a consensus across Canadian society that those (free-market) norms should not dominate in the provision of health-care services."

Toronto Star

Supreme Court of Canada, 9 June 2005:

It cannot be concluded from the evidence concerning the Quebec plan or the plans of the other provinces of Canada, or from the evolution of the systems of various OECD countries that an absolute prohibition on private insurance is necessary to protect the integrity of the public plan.  There are a wide range of measures that are less drastic and also less intrusive in relation to the protected rights.

Text of Decision

Of course, this was unfortunately bad timing. (On the other hand, did Harper have to give that speech knowing that a Supreme Court decision was pending? Then again, Harper could argue that his speech leaves him with wriggle room - he merely says that the private sector should not dominate.)

Like it or not, Harper has a public-persona of being analytical. He is known for his views to make government smaller and respect provincial rights. I suspect that whatever he does, he will never be liked. A portion of the population will absolutely hate him. While he must say that he intends to represent all Canadians, he is a divisive politician - like Margaret Thatcher.

I think Harper should decide firmly what he believes in and stick with it. He has no room to nuance.

Maybe Canadian federal politics will have to get much worse before people will turn to an honest politician like Harper. Or then again, maybe Harper would do better if he didn't pander to people who will never like him.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Harper to the Fraser Institute in Calgary 29 April 2005:

... Harper said a plan to gut medicare,... was both naïve and misguided. ... "I could not imagine a proposal that's more of a non-starter than that one," Harper said yesterday. ... the mainly business audience might not like his new position on health care, but said that political realism demanded it.

In other words, Harper's "new position on health care" is based on the raw expediency of wanting to get elected. If it was not a 'nonstarter', he'd prefer two tier healthcare.

[August1991]

In other words, Harper's "new position on health care" is based on the raw expediency of wanting to get elected. If it was not a 'nonstarter', he'd prefer two tier healthcare.

I wouldn't call it "raw expediency" but I'll agree with your inference, Sweal.

Harper gave a speech in April because he was trying to compromise, or be expedient, if you prefer. He said that public health care was the cornerstone of Canadian health policy. And then, a few weeks later, the Supreme Court ruled as any intelligent person thinks, including no doubt Harper in his own mind, saying that private health insurance should be allowed.

[Let's get a few things clear here: Manning-Harris suggested abolishing the Canada Health Act and Harper rejected that proposal in his speech while arguably saying that health care should be predominantly public. The link above to Harper's speech is to a Thomas Walkom column. The spin is that Harper is changing, but not really. Harper speech here]

One conclusion I draw from this is that Harper doesn't really know how to be expedient, or he picks the wrong moment to compromise. IMV, politicians like Harper are better saying exactly what they believe.

All modern politicians live in fear of what I call the Barry Goldwater/George McGovern effect - saying something that will frighten voters. Well, Harper is already controversial. For all intents, he will be the issue in the next campaign, as he was in effect in the last election. Voters will ask: Do I vote for Stephen Harper or not? That's the key question.

I happen to think that people will be more inclined to vote for Harper if they know clearly who he is and what he wants to do.

[Guest eureka]

"...... As any intelligent person thinks......" I take it that you think the three dissenting judges on the SCC are not intelligent persons!

[August1991]

"...... As any intelligent person thinks......" I take it that you think the three dissenting judges on the SCC are not intelligent persons!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good call, eureka! I don't think the dissenting judges are unintelligent. Rather, I suspect that within the confines of their job, they chose to interpret that Quebec's health laws are not in contradiction with the Charter, or various laws.

And eureka, good point too. When I referred to "a Supreme Court decision", I ignored the fact that two justices were not involved and the decision was split 4-3. Of the four in favour, two were the only remaining Mulroney appointees. Without a doubt, this decision is remarkable, and perhaps subject to re-interpretation. (If the gay marriage decision had been 4-3, how would people have reacted?)

But getting back to the main point of your post. IMV, any intelligent person can see that Canada's health system is unsustainable - for the same reason the Soviet Union was unsustainable. Why? You can't spend someone else's money forever.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... Canada's health system is unsustainable

Canada's health system as it exists today is in an unsustainable situation. But that certainly doesn't mean it needs to be gutted.

... Why?  You can't spend someone else's money - forever.

It is NOT somebody elses money. It's OUR money, spent by us, for us, by OUR government.

[JerrySeinfeld]

... Canada's health system is unsustainable

Canada's health system as it exists today is in an unsustainable situation. But that certainly doesn't mean it needs to be gutted.

... Why?  You can't spend someone else's money - forever.

It is NOT somebody elses money. It's OUR money, spent by us, for us, by OUR government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it's Alberta's money, being spent by Ontario's government

Sweal, you seem pretty sharp, but could I ask you to stop quoting little phrases and then cracking back on them? It makes it hard to understand what you're discussing, plus it might be more constructive to actually MAKE and argument instead of cutting up other people's ALL the time.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Harper to the Fraser Institute in Calgary 29 April 2005:

... Harper said a plan to gut medicare,... was both naïve and misguided. ... "I could not imagine a proposal that's more of a non-starter than that one," Harper said yesterday. ... the mainly business audience might not like his new position on health care, but said that political realism demanded it.

In other words, Harper's "new position on health care" is based on the raw expediency of wanting to get elected. If it was not a 'nonstarter', he'd prefer two tier healthcare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a straw man logical fallacy: Avoid suppositions and stick to the facts.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sweal, you seem pretty sharp, but could I ask you to stop quoting little phrases and then cracking back on them?  It makes it hard to understand what you're discussing, plus it might be more constructive to actually MAKE and argument instead of cutting up other people's ALL the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jerry, seemingly you haven't been here long enough to notice the extesive arguments I make.

Anyway, no offence, but I'm not about to change my style now to suit you.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Harper to the Fraser Institute in Calgary 29 April 2005:

... Harper said a plan to gut medicare,... was both naïve and misguided. ... "I could not imagine a proposal that's more of a non-starter than that one," Harper said yesterday. ... the mainly business audience might not like his new position on health care, but said that political realism demanded it.

In other words, Harper's "new position on health care" is based on the raw expediency of wanting to get elected. If it was not a 'nonstarter', he'd prefer two tier healthcare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a straw man logical fallacy: Avoid suppositions and stick to the facts.

If that were a strawman it would be a logical fallacy, but it is not a strawman.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Harper to the Fraser Institute in Calgary 29 April 2005:

... Harper said a plan to gut medicare,... was both naïve and misguided. ... "I could not imagine a proposal that's more of a non-starter than that one," Harper said yesterday. ... the mainly business audience might not like his new position on health care, but said that political realism demanded it.

In other words, Harper's "new position on health care" is based on the raw expediency of wanting to get elected. If it was not a 'nonstarter', he'd prefer two tier healthcare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a straw man logical fallacy: Avoid suppositions and stick to the facts.

If that were a strawman it would be a logical fallacy, but it is not a strawman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are putting words in Harpers mouth. That is straw man. And by the way!!!!....let me quote you here:

"Harper's "new position on health care" is based on the raw expediency of wanting to get elected"

What makes this any different from Paul Martin, the dude responsible for slashing health transfers, then campaign under the banner of Canada's champion for medicare? He did it to get elected and it worked. Shame on the voters' short term memories.

[August1991]

You are putting words in Harpers mouth. That is straw man. And by the way!!!!....let me quote you here:

"Harper's "new position on health care" is based on the raw expediency of wanting to get elected"

What makes this any different from Paul Martin, the dude responsible for slashing health transfers, then campaign under the banner of Canada's champion for medicare? He did it to get elected and it worked. Shame on the voters' short term memories.

Let's be plain here. Stephen Harper, like the Supreme Court of Canada, would prefer more private involvement in Canadian health care. Stephen Harper, like four justices on the Court, understand that the only way to sustain health care for all Canadians into the future is to change our system.

Paul Martin believes that he can solve all these problems and help Canada if he gets a majority government. If he Paul Martin and his staff do what is necessary to get the majority, Paul Martin believes that Canada is better served - since the alternative is worse. Paul Martin and his staff believe that all means to protect Canada are justified.

Edited June 25, 2005 by August1991

[JerrySeinfeld]

You are putting words in Harpers mouth. That is straw man. And by the way!!!!....let me quote you here:

"Harper's "new position on health care" is based on the raw expediency of wanting to get elected"

What makes this any different from Paul Martin, the dude responsible for slashing health transfers, then campaign under the banner of Canada's champion for medicare? He did it to get elected and it worked. Shame on the voters' short term memories.

Let's be plain here. Stephen Harper, like the Supreme Court of Canada, would prefer more private involvement in Canadian health care. Stephen Harper, like four justices on the Court, understand that the only way to sustain health care for all Canadians into the future is to change our system.

Paul Martin believes that he can solve all these problems and help Canada if he gets a majority government. If he lies to get the majority, Paul Martin believes that Canada is better served.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure aht the supreme court "prefers". The ruling stated that if the public can acces private care if they can't get timely delivery from the public system.

Otherwise I agree with alot of what you said.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Sweal, you seem pretty sharp, but could I ask you to stop quoting little phrases and then cracking back on them?  It makes it hard to understand what you're discussing, plus it might be more constructive to actually MAKE and argument instead of cutting up other people's ALL the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jerry, seemingly you haven't been here long enough to notice the extesive arguments I make.

Anyway, no offence, but I'm not about to change my style now to suit you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There you did it again...fair enough it's just easier to debate if you quote a bit more of the other person...

[stewgots]

Harper to the Fraser Institute in Calgary 29 April 2005:

Speaking at a luncheon hosted by the right-of-centre Fraser Institute, Harper said a plan to gut medicare, floated recently by former Reform party leader Preston Manning and former Ontario premier Mike Harris, was both naïve and misguided.

Manning and Harris say the federal government should kill the Canada Health Act, the federal law governing medicare, and withdraw almost completely from the health field.

"I could not imagine a proposal that's more of a non-starter than that one," Harper said yesterday.

He acknowledged that free marketeers in the mainly business audience might not like his new position on health care, but said that political realism demanded it.

"There is a consensus across Canadian society that those (free-market) norms should not dominate in the provision of health-care services."

Toronto Star

Supreme Court of Canada, 9 June 2005:

It cannot be concluded from the evidence concerning the Quebec plan or the plans of the other provinces of Canada, or from the evolution of the systems of various OECD countries that an absolute prohibition on private insurance is necessary to protect the integrity of the public plan.  There are a wide range of measures that are less drastic and also less intrusive in relation to the protected rights.

Text of Decision

Of course, this was unfortunately bad timing. (On the other hand, did Harper have to give that speech knowing that a Supreme Court decision was pending? Then again, Harper could argue that his speech leaves him with wriggle room - he merely says that the private sector should not dominate.)

Like it or not, Harper has a public-persona of being analytical. He is known for his views to make government smaller and respect provincial rights. I suspect that whatever he does, he will never be liked. A portion of the population will absolutely hate him. While he must say that he intends to represent all Canadians, he is a divisive politician - like Margaret Thatcher.

I think Harper should decide firmly what he believes in and stick with it. He has no room to nuance.

Maybe Canadian federal politics will have to get much worse before people will turn to an honest politician like Harper. Or then again, maybe Harper would do better if he didn't pander to people who will never like him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[The Terrible Sweal]

Maybe Canadian federal politics will have to get much worse before people will turn to an honest politician like Harper.  Or then again, maybe Harper would do better if he didn't pander to people who will never like him.

So which is he, honest or pandering?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Maybe Canadian federal politics will have to get much worse before people will turn to an honest politician like Harper.  Or then again, maybe Harper would do better if he didn't pander to people who will never like him.

So which is he, honest or pandering?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Touche.

Harper should stick to his guns.

He's a smart guy with smart politics.

I read a really good article about polls. It basically said: YES the Cons are down in the polls, but they are a few mere tweaks away from being just what Canadians want. The SSM thing is off base. Abortion is just a smokescreen from the Libs, it's not a big issue for the Cons. But this whole so-con thing is a smokescreen by the Libs and it's working like a charm. Let's face it. Most Canadians favor lower taxes. I'd bet most Canadians would be OK with some sort of private health if it meant better and quicker treatment. And most Canadians want honest, non-corrupt government officials. Most Canadians want democratic reform, whether it's an elected / equal senate or free votes in parlaiment. These are all things the CPC stands for.

Judging by the past year and some, the Libs have mopped the floor with the Cons in terms of spin. But the Cons actually DO have policies that appeal to many many Canadians (depsite what PM would have you believe). And the Libs are winnning the war based upon their attention to very marginal issues like abortoin and SSM. I think if the Cons gave up on these issues,they'd be a much more appealing party than the corrupt, listless Libs.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It basically said:  YES the Cons are down in the polls, but they are a few mere tweaks away from being just what Canadians want.  ... Abortion is just a smokescreen from the Libs, it's not a big issue for the Cons. 

It was a hard fought issue in their policy convention, and Harper's position retains some equivocation.

But this whole so-con thing is a smokescreen by the Libs and it's working like a charm. 

The Cons are taking their stance all on their own. It takes two to tango.

Let's face it.  Most Canadians favor lower taxes. 

Let's face it. Most Canadians understand their taxes pay for social infratructure and services they value.

I'd bet most Canadians would be OK with some sort of private health if it meant better and quicker treatment.

But it would not mean that.

And most Canadians want honest, non-corrupt government officials.  ... These are all things the CPC stands for.

Wellnow there's a peurile comment.

Judging by the past year and some, the Libs have mopped the floor with the Cons in terms of spin.  But the Cons actually DO have policies that appeal to many many Canadians

25 percent or so, isn't it?

... the Libs are winnning the war based upon their attention to very marginal issues like abortoin and SSM. 

The Libs are winning based on the Conservatives' attention to those marginal issues.