Harper & the Anglo Media

[August1991]

Even Chantal Hebert is upset because she's out of the loop:

But getting into a sulk with the national media is just another display of a skin too thin for comfort.

At best, it shifts attention from the positive to the negative, as in the case of the Charest meeting. At worst, as in the Emerson/Fortier matter, it focuses attention on the larger issue of incompetence at the top.

It is not uncommon for a bunker mentality to set in when a government is in trouble. What is fascinating about Harper's regime is that it is happening at a time when he is most likely to enjoy the benefit of the doubt in his media dealings.

In six months (or fewer), the Prime Minister will look back on this period as the easiest in his tenure, a time when he still has the opportunity to dictate, or at least influence positively, much of what is said about his government.

Chantal Hebert

----

I think Harper is doing the right thing. English-Canada's media is based in Toronto, and its spin only influences people who are swayed by breezes. Harper is right to ignore this.

OTOH, Harper must go over the media's heads and speak to people who will vote for him. Harper may have to learn how to encrypt the message, but the media will dutifully transmit it and despite the media spin, Harper supporters will accurately decrypt.

The web is a new way to communicate. What does this mean? Jeffrey Simpson is no longer de man. Greg Weston is just some guy. What's cool? Weston & Simpson, or Lonely in the Great White Dot Com? I think kinsella.com and small dead animals.com are on to something. The web sets the beat - the cool-hunters troll the web.

----

Messages to Harper:

1. Do a Nixon/Reagan and go over journalists' heads to get your message out.

2. Don't worry about bricks-and-mortar journalists who complain. This is the 21st century. Use modern technology. It looks cool.

3. Canadians who vote (or may vote) Tory want an honest PM who takes care of things. Don't talk to us unless it matters. We're not flakes.

(4. Your francophone media plan need not be different in substance, but maybe in style. If I understand properly, the Harper message is universal. So don't worry.)

[shoop]

Good advice to Harper. Also good to remember that this strategy must be adhered to strictly. i.e. no whining about bad media coverage when it inevitably comes...

----

Messages to Harper:

1. Do a Nixon/Reagan and go over journalists' heads to get your message out.

2. Don't worry about bricks-and-mortar journalists who complain. This is the 21st century. Use modern technology. It looks cool.

3. Canadians who vote (or may vote) Tory want an honest PM who takes care of things. Don't talk to us unless it matters. We're not flakes.

(4. Your francophone media plan need not be different in substance, but maybe in style. If I understand properly, the Harper message is universal. So don't worry.)

[August1991]

Paul Wells:

In other news, which if I'm not mistaken none of my MSM colleagues has mentioned, the Harper PMO is sharing information with conservative bloggers. Which information? I don't know. Am I righteously upset, as a dues-paying member (well, an I-have-my-dues-paid-for-me-by-my-very-large-corporation) member of the gallery? Nope. I'm righteously upset about some other stuff, but I try not to whine. In the meantime, as both parties are learning, bloggers are part of the game now.

Hmmm.

[geoffrey]

Go bloggers go!

The leaking information to bloggers? Don't know about that. Didn't Monte Soldberg have a blog for awhile? Maybe he's the mole.

[August1991]

The Toronto Star's Richard Gwyn is left to interview his leftish friends to find out what Harper is up to:

A friend who is something of a lefty took me aback the other day by remarking that she was rather enjoying Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government.

She's no Harper groupie. She most certainly is no conservative. Yet she admitted she could feel a certain tug toward Harper and his government.

Toronto Star

The column is rather comical, and is no better than the opinions one can read on this forum.

Comical? Well, how else to react to Gwyn's following comment:

The key question is whether Harper is paddling against the tide, or with it. My own guess is that he's going with the flow.

My own guess is that English-Canada's, Toronto-centred punditry is scratching its head because it's no better informed than anyone else.

---

Paul Wells had a long piece on his weblog about Harper and the media. The piece is pointed, detailed and reasonable. But Wells misses the forest for the trees, or the elephant for the folding Swedish furniture.

Politically astute Canadians (ie. political junkies) now have the Internet and so a new way to get information about what's going on. Sure, we usually rely on frontline journalists for the facts - although even that is changing. Who would have thought, 10 years ago, that Wells would be posting for all to see his long piece linked above?

Moreover, there's alot more Canadians who give a passing glance, if that, to politics.

By his actions, Harper is going over the standard journalists' heads and speaking to Canadians.

[August1991]

The forum is back up this rainy Saturday morning and there are three pieces in three different Toronto newspapers about Harper. First, the "negative" puff job by Ian Brown in G & M:

To judge from his first four months in office, Mr. Harper is running the most hands-on, centrally controlled federal government in living memory, a government so Harper-centric and so micro-managed by the Prime Minister's Office it feels literally patriarchal. If Big Daddy Harper is a control freak — and no one denies it, even if they won't speak for attribution — he is a control freak on purpose, in order to come across as a firm and fatherly leader, one prime ministerial enough to deserve a majority in the next election.

Ohhhkay. We sorta knew that Harper is a hands on kinda guy. Then Brown gets absolutely silly:

“His hair,” one Ottawa matron insists. “Just look at his hair. Is that not the hair of a control freak?”The Prime Minister's iron grip extends to his private life. His wife, previously known as Laureen Teskey or Laureen Teskey Harper, now prefers Laureen Harper — almost 30 years after Maureen McTeer kept her maiden name.

Brown then turns to a fellow journalist (WTF?) for an opinion:

Greg Weston, Ottawa columnist for Sun Media, has been covering Parliament Hill for 30 years. “I don't need the PMO to do my job,” he says. “But the control concerns me. This is the way they're going to be running the country. It's not just early game jitters. This is part of a deep-rooted belief set. It's almost a culture.”

Finally, Brown commits the unforgiveable error of equating the public and the media:

A more accurate and potentially more damaging charge is that Mr. Harper treats the media — and therefore Canadians — like children.

And therefore Canadians? Sorry, when a journalist claims to speak in my name, I kinda ignore everything from that point on...

So, I turn to an "exclusive interview" in the Toronto Star:

"I joke with my family and friends and relatives that this is the job for me," he said, while conceding the limelight has taken some getting used to.

"The kind of celebrity side of it is even bigger than I had imagined, and as you know that's not particularly an attraction for me, but you get used to it," Harper said.

---

The Prime Minister also said he's been surprised by the inertia of government, likening the federal bureaucracy to a "gigantic ocean liner.

"It takes quite a long time to turn around," he said.

"We've done some things fairly quickly, but there are some kinds of changes, especially if they involve changes to bureaucratic priorities or whatever, it really requires the prime minister to make it clear that things have to change," he said.

Two very true points...

But the best piece of all is by Andrew Coyne:

That is not to say it is without principle. It clearly retains longer-term ambitions to remake both the federal government and the federation on broadly Conservative lines. But, it is equally clear, it will not hesitate to compromise its virtue on the road to that Jerusalem. Nor is it greatly distressed that it might disappoint its own followers in the process. Indeed, it would be hard to disappoint them at this stage, most of the really important compromises having already been made, long before the Tories were elected.

The platform, with its carefully tailored Conservatism -- no real reduction in the size and scope of government, indeed no specific spending cuts of any kind, only a passel of "tax cuts" aimed at key voter groups -- was not only aimed at winning power, but at seeing them safely through their first months in office. It was expressly designed for a minority government, limited enough to present no obvious target for the opposition parties, popular enough to repel whatever objections they might devise. In a word, it's bulletproof.

----

Mr. Harper's challenge in coming months will be to begin to sketch the outlines of a bolder agenda -- to put his new-found credibility to good effect, inviting the country to follow him in a new direction: to lead, not just to manage.

Coyne's piece made me realize that we could have a minority government for four years. It would take a united Gang of Three to bring the government down, and that's not going to happen any time soon, even when the Liberals do get a leader. The Tories could provoke a defeat but then again, why would they? Harper seems to be a different type of leader.

----

Frankly, I think Harper is better off to ignore the Anglo media and get on with doing his job. Canadians are getting to know Harper in their own way and they'll judge him on results.

[Argus]

Frankly, I think Harper is better off to ignore the Anglo media and get on with doing his job. Canadians are getting to know Harper in their own way and they'll judge him on results.

The English media are, by and large, Harper's enemies anyway. Eighty percent of the press gallery would be better off selling shoes for a living, and would probably be mediocre and unprofessional at that too.

[shoop]

While we *could* have a majority government for four years .... it is very, very unlikely.

Once the five priorities are fulfilled, what is the raison d'etre for the Government staying in place?

Let's take a quick look at the five priorities.

1. GST has been cut.

2. Federal Accountability legislation has been introduced.

3. Tougher mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes legislation has been introduced.

4. Choice in Childcare promise has been fulfilled.

5. Patient wait times guarantee will be THE main topic at the First Minister's meeting in the fall.

I personally think an election will be held in 2007 for a number of reasons.

The PM could decide to "pull a Chretien" and call an election before the new Liberal leader has much time to get settled into his new job.

If the budget, Accountability Act or the gun crimes legislation gets held up in the Senate it will give the Conservatives a very valid reason to go back to the electorate - and an issue (Senate reform) they would feel comfortable fighting the next election on.

The Liberals are still lagging far behind the CPC in fundraising. The drain of Liberal party donations to leadership campaigns will mean that the Liberals can't hope to start catching up anytime in the next eight months or so. This is advantageous to the NDP, and to a lesser extent the Bloc, as well.

If the Government were to stay into a second or third year you would also see the social conservatives pushing for more and more of their causes. That would work agains the party and Harper knows that.

The only party that is really helped by an election in 2008 or later is the Liberals. Do the CPC, Bloc or NDP really want to help the Liberals?

Coyne's piece made me realize that we could have a minority government for four years. It would take a united Gang of Three to bring the government down, and that's not going to happen any time soon, even when the Liberals do get a leader. The Tories could provoke a defeat but then again, why would they? Harper seems to be a different type of leader.

[no1important]

Here is another interesting article I found about our new dictator:

In Harper's regime, Big Daddy knows best

When it comes time for history to bestow a permanent nickname on Prime Minister Stephen Harper — to label his stretch as Canada's leader, the way “Slick Willie” Clinton or “Uncle Louis” St. Laurent sum up theirs — someone should give serious consideration to “Big Daddy” Harper as a contender for the honour.

Consider the evidence:

Last month, to avoid bad press on an issue he has tied firmly to the Conservative brand, Mr. Harper banned the media from filming the return of the bodies of four Canadian soldiers who died last month in Afghanistan.

Instead of decentralizing power as promised, Mr. Harper has funnelled more and more control straight into the Prime Minister's Office. The PMO now pre-approves everything Tory ministers and MPs do in their political lives. They've been ordered to speak less to the media, and banned from gassing about the government's plans.

When they do speak (to order lunch, maybe) they have to stick to the government's five priorities — the federal accountability act, GST cuts, child care, crime and medical waiting lists — virtually idiot-proof subjects. Big Daddy's boys aren't just on message; they're all message, all the time.

“But this guy micro-manages more. The business of government has ground to a halt on anything that isn't a declared priority.”

Ministers who break these rules are spanked by Mr. Harper, hard — and in public. Peter MacKay, Mr. Harper's Minister of Foreign Affairs, has been hauled onto the carpet to be flogged so many times, it's beginning to look as if he likes the pain.

He was reprimanded most forcefully for suggesting that some aid might still flow to the Palestine Authority from Canada, despite the election of Hamas.

When Mr. MacKay tried to hire Graham Fox, the clever son of Bill Fox, Brian Mulroney's old pal, as his chief of staff, Mr. Harper vetoed the move — on the grounds that Mr. Fox once wrote an in-house critique of Mr. Harper's performance in opposition.

Some say the real reason is that Mr. Harper considers Mr. Fox too crafty to be working for Mr. MacKay, a potential contender for Mr. Harper's job.

No one is allowed to contradict government policy, even in their imagination. Last month, Marc Tushingham, an Environment Canada scientist, published H otter Than Hell, a novel about global warming. He was instantly prohibited from promoting the book because Mr. Harper's government was quietly cutting its Kyoto Accord budget by up to 80 per cent that week

For years openly scornful of reporters (“he blames the media for the 2004 loss,” one insider explains), the prime minister has now declared war on the parliamentary press gallery. The PMO no longer advertises the time and location of cabinet meetings, which means reporters can no longer scrum ministers as they leave the weekly brain mash.

As a result, they've resorted to buttonholing ministers as they climb into their limos. The PMO recently volleyed back by asking cabinet ministers not to park their limos near the members entrance to the House of Commons, so as not to tip reporters that a cabinet meeting is in session. Mr. Harper himself has allegedly resorted to sneaking up to the meeting on a freight elevator. All these antics make the nation's business look like a high-level game of sardines.

The Prime Minister now tries to limit the numbers and kinds of questions reporters ask, and has adopted the Bush White House strategy of favouring friendly questioners.

No surprise, then, that Mr. Harper eats through press secretaries the way some people pop Tums. Bets are now being taken on Parliament Hill that Sandra Buckler, his second director of communications in three months, won't last past June.

Mr. Harper bypasses the national media more and more — taking last minute trips, covering up visits by foreign statesmen such as the president of Haiti, waiting three days to reveal that Canada has renewed its commitment to NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defence Command — and instead travels the country to talk to local TV stations.

“His hair,” one Ottawa matron insists. “Just look at his hair. Is that not the hair of a control freak?”The Prime Minister's iron grip extends to his private life. His wife, previously known as Laureen Teskey or Laureen Teskey Harper, now prefers Laureen Harper — almost 30 years after Maureen McTeer kept her maiden name.

“There's definitely been a big change as a result,” one well-connected Ottawa socialite notes. “There's a little bit of a chill in terms of going out to lunch and expensing it.” Two of Ottawa's best restaurants closed after the Tories' righteousness about the sponsorship scandal made civil servants shy about spending money on meals.

After it was revealed last week that Tory MPs had attended a Senators playoff game as guests of a corporation, the PMO instantly issued a statement declaring that the Prime Minister and his son had also attended a game — but paid for their own tickets. Big Daddy is always cleaner than clean.

The controller-in-chief has affected Ottawa's personal style as well. Sober is the new black. Navy blue suits are in, especially worn American style, waist-high with cuffs slightly short above glistening shoes (Mr. Harper's most notable sartorial habit). The mantra you hear most often in Harperville these days is “get it done.

In recent days, rumours have begun to circulate that Mr. Harper has even limited his ministers' opportunities to speak in cabinet meetings. Instead, he has begun to meet them privately beforehand, hear their proposals and then make their presentations himself. That's Big Daddy, for sure.Naturally in partisan Ottawa, a lot of people claim Mr. Harper's love of command and control makes them nervous.

Meetings, according to a Tory close to the Prime Minister, are “intellectually elbows up. He talks over you. He can ignore you. When you push back at him, he can be okay. But no one does. It is a controlling atmosphere. PMO's a very unhappy place to work, very stressful, because of the control.”

The link above has a lot more. This guy Harper is a total nutjob.

[Argus]

Here is another interesting article I found about our new dictator:

The link above has a lot more. This guy Harper is a total nutjob.

Just fyi, posting nothing but flame bait, with no intelligent commentary or opinion, is not welcome on this forum. You'd best return to babble.ca before you're banned.

I have a feeling your stay with us will be short, in any case. This kind of rabid, mouth-breathing hate for conservatives isn't likely to find anything but ridicule here.

[Nocrap]

I listen to a radio call-in show that is mostly political and one caller brought up an interesting point. (I don't have a link or need one since it's pretty general and just a little food for thought)

He said that Harper's gagging of MP's and tight control on media relations is the fuel that fires investigative reporters.

If he refuses to have a working relationship with the media and allows only those who share his views access to his office, the outcasts will hunt down their own story and he may not like what they unearth.

I still say this is going to come back to bite him in the rump.

[scribblet]

It might come back to bite him true. If these 'investigative reporters' don't get enough, your right, they might go out and make it up as they go along, (they do often anyway). And we know too many people believe everything they read in the MSM.

[Shakeyhands]

Here is another interesting article I found about our new dictator:

The link above has a lot more. This guy Harper is a total nutjob.

Just fyi, posting nothing but flame bait, with no intelligent commentary or opinion, is not welcome on this forum. You'd best return to babble.ca before you're banned.

I have a feeling your stay with us will be short, in any case. This kind of rabid, mouth-breathing hate for conservatives isn't likely to find anything but ridicule here.

I find this post very interesting Argus, its a link, nlo different than many you yourself have posted, from a legitimate op piece, threatening to have him/her banned is not only waaaaaaay outside anything that you caould do, but smacks of exactly what the writer of the op ed piece was talking about. I don't see anything untrue in the artice.... MLW isn't a conservative only playground. But you knew that right?

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, Argus has a point. That poster seems to have posted a large part of an article without adding anything useful to the discussion. It's not helpful.

[August1991]

I provided a link to the same G & M article further up the thread so in fact no1important was providing nothing new.

As to the article itself, it was a negative puff piece. It referred to Harper's hair and his wife's name. It then implied that the media and the Canadian public were the same thing. When journalists become arrogant like that, I stop paying much attention.

IMV, the article was written specifically in a provocative style for the left-wing "Hate Harper" crowd. I figure the G & M has started to indulge in this as an attempt to bolster circulation among young urbanites who don't buy newspapers. Dunno.

[shoop]

That is the key point. While these National Press Gallery whining pieces will continue, they aren't gaining much popular support.

The Prime Minister is communicating to the public. He is just choosing to do it differently. i.e. using local media far more than usual to communicate to the electorate.

It is very interesting. People see these complaints from the media in the same news broadcasts with the PM, or a local Minister/MP being interviewed on the issue of the day.

The cognitive dissonance really means that people won't buy into the equation that Harper changing the relationship of the PMO effects their daily lives.

As to the article itself, it was a negative puff piece. It referred to Harper's hair and his wife's name. It then implied that the media and the Canadian public were the same thing. When journalists become arrogant like that, I stop paying much attention.

IMV, the article was written specifically in a provocative style for the left-wing "Hate Harper" crowd. I figure the G & M has started to indulge in this as an attempt to bolster circulation among young urbanites who don't buy newspapers. Dunno.

[August1991]

Said the female student: "But we don't really watch TV to get election news anymore. We go online."

For this writer, at least, the realization that (a) the Conservatives were going to win the 2006 general election, and ( that the traditional campaign media framework had radically changed, came road-to-Damascus-like, and more or less simultaneously.

...

The confluence of these two realizations, of course, was a Conservative party victory on Jan. 23 -- achieved, in no small measure, due to the Tories' expert manipulation of Web and blog content. At a sold-out Web conference in Toronto this week, there was general agreement that the Conservatives understood the World Wide Web better than did their electoral opponents. And that, in the future, to the Web-savvy will go the political spoils.

...

"The Conservative party is much more blog-aware than the Liberal party," said Wells. The 2006 election results provide some proof of that, perhaps.

Warren Kinsella in the National Post

While Kinsella's column refers to blogs, I think the real story is in the blogs' comments sections and political forums such as this one. (There's no doubt that smalldeadanimals gets far more hits than MLW.)

The percentage of Canadians who actively follow politics (political junkies) is small. In the past, these people confined their opinions to family and friends unless they were partisan and became active in a political party. In English-Canada, the political agenda was set by a relatively small number of journalists based in Toronto.

The Internet has clearly changed this situation and now forums and blogs set the agenda. And it's interesting that the NDP and the Conservatives are the beneficiaries. The Liberal Party is the loser. (I have always been surprised by the small number of Liberal Party posters one finds on blogs or forums, relative to Conservative, NDP or neutral posters.)

IOW, I don't think the Conservative Party's Internet success is due to deliberate policy. At most, the Conservative Party has done nothing to hinder its Internet success, and has wisely helped it. I frankly think a heavy-handed approach would not work.

Simply put, the Liberal Party doesn't get the Internet and I think the reason is that the Internet exposes how vapid the Liberal Party is. Dunno.

Something else. In French-Canada, this Internet effect is not nearly as extensive as in English-Canada but one can see a similar portrayal of conservative viewpoints.

[scribblet]

Talking about the internet, and rather than starting another thread, I'll post this excellent blog here:

http://www.jacksnewswatch.info/

Canada comes first! | May 18th, 2006

In the previous post I noted two stories that are out today. Oddly enough they appeared in MacLeans, a magazine not noted for being highly friendly to those of the conservative persuasion. Both stories speak to the new political magic being wrought in Quebec by Stephen Harper and his band of “merry people” (I’m nothing if not politically correct when it comes to gender).

No Brian Mulroney this guy!

No glibness, no bullshit, no ”silver tongued” promises. Just pure action which drives the opposition to fits of apoplexy - “action” predicated on a belief that Quebecers are exactly like the rest of us with the small difference that they happen to think in French. A belief which assumes that Quebecers want exactly the same things that people from BC to “Newfie” want. An assumption which I have known for some time is entirely correct.

Our country was based on the agreed view between the French and the English (after the battle of the Plains of Abraham) that the provinces would “do their thing” and the federal government would do “it’s thing” - never should the power of the “one” intrude upon the “other”. It was a formal settlement (many good people died to realize it) and this new country based everything that it was and “could be” upon it.

-snip-

Then it happened.

The lies and the deceit.

Along came the guy with the “rose in his teeth” - a drum banging, breast beating, thieving (he drove us so far into debt our grandkids won’t be able to pay it off - think Bob Rae ‘heavy’) “finger behind the Queen” communist oriented kind of guy - and Canada lost it’s way.’

The “Pied Piper” had arrived.

What fools we were (and continue to be) as we followed the “new god” of centralization of power. Canada made over in the image of the Soviet Union (which as we all know is a false god).

Canada was never ” that” - and never will be. Trudeau’s ideas were (and remain) a recipe for the formal breakup of this country, which is far to large to govern in such a manner.

Two generations have fallen for the bullshit that Trudeau started but finally, after decades of lies, we have an opportunity to look at this situation again..

Harper gives all of us new hope that we can change the picture.

[August1991]

I'm going to put this Radio-Canada link here even though it concerns how the French media deals with Harper. If you can understand French, you should watch it but even if you don't, there are some parts in English. This was on Wednesday night past after the 10 pm news.

Le style Harper

For those who don't know, the guy in the blue shirt who frequently comments is Joseph Facal, erstwhile right wing PQ cabinet minister. Both he, Bernard Landry and Mario Dumont have remarkably positive things to say about Harper and the way he is governing.

The documentary opens by pointing out that Harper is more pragmatic than ideological, and then gives Fortier and Emerson as examples. (This is presented positively.)

In Quebec, Harper's discipline with the media is not seen badly - it shows competence. Harper's connection to Bush and the US are not negatives either, they produced a softwood lumber agreement.

There are several French memes that run through this doc. One is that English Canada will always negotiate if push comes to shove. Another is that Quebec is better treated by English Conservatives in Ottawa than by French Liberals. Another, and it's new, is that Harper is an autonomist and wants to respect the jurisdiction of Quebec.

The comments of Facal and Landry alone make this documentary one to watch.

[mcqueen625]

Here is another interesting article I found about our new dictator:

In Harper's regime, Big Daddy knows best

When it comes time for history to bestow a permanent nickname on Prime Minister Stephen Harper — to label his stretch as Canada's leader, the way “Slick Willie” Clinton or “Uncle Louis” St. Laurent sum up theirs — someone should give serious consideration to “Big Daddy” Harper as a contender for the honour.

Consider the evidence:

Last month, to avoid bad press on an issue he has tied firmly to the Conservative brand, Mr. Harper banned the media from filming the return of the bodies of four Canadian soldiers who died last month in Afghanistan.

Instead of decentralizing power as promised, Mr. Harper has funnelled more and more control straight into the Prime Minister's Office. The PMO now pre-approves everything Tory ministers and MPs do in their political lives. They've been ordered to speak less to the media, and banned from gassing about the government's plans.

When they do speak (to order lunch, maybe) they have to stick to the government's five priorities — the federal accountability act, GST cuts, child care, crime and medical waiting lists — virtually idiot-proof subjects. Big Daddy's boys aren't just on message; they're all message, all the time.

“But this guy micro-manages more. The business of government has ground to a halt on anything that isn't a declared priority.”

Ministers who break these rules are spanked by Mr. Harper, hard — and in public. Peter MacKay, Mr. Harper's Minister of Foreign Affairs, has been hauled onto the carpet to be flogged so many times, it's beginning to look as if he likes the pain.

He was reprimanded most forcefully for suggesting that some aid might still flow to the Palestine Authority from Canada, despite the election of Hamas.

When Mr. MacKay tried to hire Graham Fox, the clever son of Bill Fox, Brian Mulroney's old pal, as his chief of staff, Mr. Harper vetoed the move — on the grounds that Mr. Fox once wrote an in-house critique of Mr. Harper's performance in opposition.

Some say the real reason is that Mr. Harper considers Mr. Fox too crafty to be working for Mr. MacKay, a potential contender for Mr. Harper's job.

No one is allowed to contradict government policy, even in their imagination. Last month, Marc Tushingham, an Environment Canada scientist, published H otter Than Hell, a novel about global warming. He was instantly prohibited from promoting the book because Mr. Harper's government was quietly cutting its Kyoto Accord budget by up to 80 per cent that week

For years openly scornful of reporters (“he blames the media for the 2004 loss,” one insider explains), the prime minister has now declared war on the parliamentary press gallery. The PMO no longer advertises the time and location of cabinet meetings, which means reporters can no longer scrum ministers as they leave the weekly brain mash.

As a result, they've resorted to buttonholing ministers as they climb into their limos. The PMO recently volleyed back by asking cabinet ministers not to park their limos near the members entrance to the House of Commons, so as not to tip reporters that a cabinet meeting is in session. Mr. Harper himself has allegedly resorted to sneaking up to the meeting on a freight elevator. All these antics make the nation's business look like a high-level game of sardines.

The Prime Minister now tries to limit the numbers and kinds of questions reporters ask, and has adopted the Bush White House strategy of favouring friendly questioners.

No surprise, then, that Mr. Harper eats through press secretaries the way some people pop Tums. Bets are now being taken on Parliament Hill that Sandra Buckler, his second director of communications in three months, won't last past June.

Mr. Harper bypasses the national media more and more — taking last minute trips, covering up visits by foreign statesmen such as the president of Haiti, waiting three days to reveal that Canada has renewed its commitment to NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defence Command — and instead travels the country to talk to local TV stations.

“His hair,” one Ottawa matron insists. “Just look at his hair. Is that not the hair of a control freak?”The Prime Minister's iron grip extends to his private life. His wife, previously known as Laureen Teskey or Laureen Teskey Harper, now prefers Laureen Harper — almost 30 years after Maureen McTeer kept her maiden name.

“There's definitely been a big change as a result,” one well-connected Ottawa socialite notes. “There's a little bit of a chill in terms of going out to lunch and expensing it.” Two of Ottawa's best restaurants closed after the Tories' righteousness about the sponsorship scandal made civil servants shy about spending money on meals.

After it was revealed last week that Tory MPs had attended a Senators playoff game as guests of a corporation, the PMO instantly issued a statement declaring that the Prime Minister and his son had also attended a game — but paid for their own tickets. Big Daddy is always cleaner than clean.

The controller-in-chief has affected Ottawa's personal style as well. Sober is the new black. Navy blue suits are in, especially worn American style, waist-high with cuffs slightly short above glistening shoes (Mr. Harper's most notable sartorial habit). The mantra you hear most often in Harperville these days is “get it done.

In recent days, rumours have begun to circulate that Mr. Harper has even limited his ministers' opportunities to speak in cabinet meetings. Instead, he has begun to meet them privately beforehand, hear their proposals and then make their presentations himself. That's Big Daddy, for sure.Naturally in partisan Ottawa, a lot of people claim Mr. Harper's love of command and control makes them nervous.

Meetings, according to a Tory close to the Prime Minister, are “intellectually elbows up. He talks over you. He can ignore you. When you push back at him, he can be okay. But no one does. It is a controlling atmosphere. PMO's a very unhappy place to work, very stressful, because of the control.”

The link above has a lot more. This guy Harper is a total nutjob.

This, obviously coming from a disgruntled Liberal who saw their party go down for the third time. Harper, rather than being the nutjob as you refer to him and the CPC is at least doing what the people of this country wants our PM to do which is to lower taxes, get tough on crime, and all of the other initiatves he has already put in motion. The only thing I want to see next is either the abolishment of the Senate or transform it into an elected body so at least they can be held accountable. Maybe we should also look at electing the Supreme Court as well, so that they too will be accountable to the people and reflect the wishes of the people. Right now the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of bleeding heart Liberals who is more concerned about the rights of offenders than they are about the victims of crime. That needs to change if we are to have a society we can all be proud of. We do not need former members of the John Howard society sitting on the judiciary, anywhere in this country. Criminals already have enough advocates with the judiciary.

[Nocrap]

It might come back to bite him true. If these 'investigative reporters' don't get enough, your right, they might go out and make it up as they go along, (they do often anyway). And we know too many people believe everything they read in the MSM.

I don't think they'll have to make up much. With limited resources I've been able to link Harper and many of his MP's to some pretty disturbing organizations; not to mention Haliburton and the Carlysle Group. Too bad Mike Moore isn't Canadian because he would have a field day.

I do look forward to some pretty explosive W5's and Fifth Estates in the near future though.

[August1991]

It might come back to bite him true. If these 'investigative reporters' don't get enough, your right, they might go out and make it up as they go along, (they do often anyway). And we know too many people believe everything they read in the MSM.

I don't think they'll have to make up much. With limited resources I've been able to link Harper and many of his MP's to some pretty disturbing organizations; not to mention Haliburton and the Carlysle Group. Too bad Mike Moore isn't Canadian because he would have a field day.

I do look forward to some pretty explosive W5's and Fifth Estates in the near future though.

Huh? For the first time in a long time we've got a Sharper PM.

Sharper has adroitly sidestepped all the Left's previous attempts to paint him as a "scary guy". It doesn't work anymore. Nocrap, have you ever thought of debating him on the issues instead of trying to attack him by innuendo?

[Canuck E Stan]

With limited resources I've been able to link Harper and many of his MP's to some pretty disturbing organizations;

I do look forward to some pretty explosive W5's and Fifth Estates in the near future though.

Disturbing organizations? Explosive?

I doubt if it's true.

It would have all been reported on before the last election.

The Liberals themselves with all their researchers couldn't find nocrap on the conservatives.

Except the famous "In our cities,in Canada" full of crap stuff.

[August1991]

About two dozen journalists walked out on Stephen Harper yesterday after he refused to take questions, the latest chapter in an increasingly unseemly spat between the prime minister and members of the national media.

...

It resulted in Harper being forced to make his announcement on aid to Darfur to a small handful of reporters, photographers and camera operators outside the House of Commons.

Link

(The Toronto Star was obviously among those who hung around.)

Paul Wells' take:

One thing's for sure. I've spared my print audience this debate because the larger audience for our paper product does not deserve to be tortured with our exquisite beltway debates. That means readers of this blog have had to bear the burden of my breathless updates on the latest spat between Harper's PMO and the emboldened scribes.

Link

Hohum...

[Argus]

Paul Wells' take:

One thing's for sure. I've spared my print audience this debate because the larger audience for our paper product does not deserve to be tortured with our exquisite beltway debates. That means readers of this blog have had to bear the burden of my breathless updates on the latest spat between Harper's PMO and the emboldened scribes.

Link

Hohum...

Interesting to note Trudeau did exactly what Harper wants to do - decide who asks him questions, and that Pearson got so fed up he threw the press right off the hill. Evil Liberals! I also read somewhere that Martin had just such a rule during the last election, and only asked questions of the reporters who sucked up to him and gave him good stories. No complaints from the national media about that.