Stephen Harper: A one mandate PM?

[August1991]

Joe Clark got nine months. Martin got about two years. Meighen got a year and a half. Turner got two months. After Macdonald's death, there were four PMs in succession: The most tragic was John Thompson (he got exactly two years).

Will Stephen Harper go into Canadian history in a similar way? There's a strong likelihood and here's why I think so.

First, consider this evidence which I posted in another thread but I want to post here to make my case:

Much ink has been spilled on the "fossil of the day" award which was given to Conservative environment minister Rona Ambrose at this year's U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Activists complain that the Canadian government deserved the dubious distinction for its inaction on addressing greenhouse gases.

As one of my readers points out, this is not the first time that Canada has earned the "fossil of the day" award. At last year's UNFCCC conference in Montreal, Mr. "gavel banger" himself, then-minister of the environment (a Liberal), received the "fossil of the day award" too! (do an inline search for "fossil")

News stories on (Conservative) Rona Ambrose receiving the fossil of the day award: 193

News stories on (Liberal) Stephane Dion receiving the fossil of the day award: none

Stephen Taylor

The English-Canada, Toronto-centred media knows it has its teeth into the Tory carcass. It was looking to make the kill.

In Quebec, in the Montreal press, the Tories have gone beyond ridicule and now are presented as insane. (I randomly choose the first media quote google offers.)

Peu après la tuerie de Dawson, le ministre de la Sécurité publique, Stockwell Day, a dû expliquer pourquoi il entendait abolir en partie le registre des armes à feu.

La Presse

Then there's this recent Decima poll that has attracted attention elsewhere on this forum:

Respondents to a new national poll placed the federal Liberals ahead of the Conservatives for the first time in almost a year.

However, the narrow Liberal lead in the Decima poll was within the three-percentage-point margin of error, which means it’s too close to say who’s really ahead.

The Grits had the support of 33 per cent of respondents nationally, while the Tories had 31 per cent, the NDP had 15 per cent and the Green party had 10.

CanWest

Then we have posters like our own Geoffrey who disavow their support for Harper and the Tories. Harper is losing his base.

----

It's a political truism of parliamentary democracy that oppositions don't win; governments defeat themselves.

In that sense, I'm going to ask a question and I don't mean to be partisan and I hope it's not interpreted that way: If Stephen Harper is defeated in the next election, what will that mean?

In particular, if Harper is defeated by Dion (My own personal guess for next Liberal leader), what will that mean? Even if Ignatieff or Rae defeats Harper? (My own guess is that Kennedy won't be leader.)

The only conclusion is that Canada cannot have a protestant, anglophone, conservative PM from Alberta. Harper is the only person who can bridge the difference between Western and Central Canada and rural and urban Canada. If he can't do it, no one can. Rae, Ignatieff and Dion are urban, central Canadians. Their claim to fame is that they understand Quebec. Dion is from Quebec and speaks with a French accent.

If Harper is defeated in the next election, and it's increasingly likely that he will be, I think that it will be the signal that Canada is ungovernable. The different regions of the country, urban and rural, linguistic and religious, simply cannot compromise any more.

[geoffrey]

Then we have posters like our own Geoffrey who disavow their support for Harper and the Tories. Harper is losing his base.

The party I support is dependant upon who is elected Liberal leader at the end of the month, beginning of next month. I would vote CPC to prevent a Rae or Dion government (not like my vote matters, I'm in Harper's riding).

I think that's another key point. The CPC base is very strong where it exists. Alberta, interior BC... they won't lose seats here if even half their supporters vacated to the Liberals. It's the swing voters that are the issue. And I think the CPC is playing the wrong issues the wrong way to appeal to those voters in Quebec and the 905.

It's a political truism of parliamentary democracy that oppositions don't win; governments defeat themselves.

In that sense, I'm going to ask a question and I don't mean to be partisan and I hope it's not interpreted that way: If Stephen Harper is defeated in the next election, what will that mean?

In particular, if Harper is defeated by Dion (My own personal guess for next Liberal leader), what will that mean? Even if Ignatieff or Rae defeats Harper? (My own guess is that Kennedy won't be leader.)

The only conclusion is that Canada cannot have a protestant, anglophone, conservative PM from Alberta. Harper is the only person who can bridge the difference between Western and Central Canada and rural and urban Canada. If he can't do it, no one can. Rae, Ignatieff and Dion are urban, central Canadians. Their claim to fame is that they understand Quebec. Dion is from Quebec and speaks with a French accent.

If Harper is defeated in the next election, and it's increasingly likely that he will be, I think that it will be the signal that Canada is ungovernable. The different regions of the country, urban and rural, linguistic and religious, simply cannot compromise any more.

That is a bit of shocker, I wasn't expecting this post to go that way. Unfortunately, I'd have to agree, to some extent August. Alberta will not be governed by a strong handed Quebecois leader. Dion (or Iggy with the carbon tax) would be very upsetting to Albertans. I think this is already quite proven, Calgary hasn't elected a Federal Liberal since the NEP and Alberta in general only a couple in Edmonton.

Easterns will say, who cares? It's Alberta, what do they mean? It's not even 10% of the seats in the House of Commons. But it is a big deal. If no party can deal with Alberta and Quebec (despite being on common ground in more areas than any other two provinces IMO) at the same time, I don't think Canada is governable in it's current form.

Now, some people will suggest dropping Alberta or Quebec from confederation by their own seperation will solve that issue, but I disagree. The Liberals or CPC can't appeal to Ontario and Alberta at the same time either. It's not possible, too much cultural and political difference. Neither of those parties can speak to a Saskatchewan at the same time as Quebec either. The Liberals have struggled balancing Ontario and Quebec at times as well.

But August, what if Kennedy is elected (despite your disagreement with that possibility). That does send a message. Two western leaders? Interesting indeed. Are the Liberals ready to accept a leader from the West, that's a bigger issue of contention. That's why my support for their party is dependant upon Kennedy's election. Have the Liberals grown past that infamous Trudeau staffer line of "screw the west, we'll take the rest?"

[gerryhatrick]

If Harper is defeated in the next election, and it's increasingly likely that he will be, I think that it will be the signal that Canada is ungovernable.

If I posted anything even close to this on the opposing end the cries and wails of ANTI-HARPERISM would ring loud. Posters would come out of hiatus to denounce me.

[geoffrey]

If Harper is defeated in the next election, and it's increasingly likely that he will be, I think that it will be the signal that Canada is ungovernable.

If I posted anything even close to this on the opposing end the cries and wails of ANTI-HARPERISM would ring loud. Posters would come out of hiatus to denounce me.

If August posted 10 of these a day, I'd denounce him as anti-Harper too (somewhat kidding here).

[gerryhatrick]

In Quebec, in the Montreal press, the Tories have gone beyond ridicule and now are presented as insane. (I randomly choose the first media quote google offers.)

Peu après la tuerie de Dawson, le ministre de la Sécurité publique, Stockwell Day, a dû expliquer pourquoi il entendait abolir en partie le registre des armes à feu.

La Presse

Are you able to translate this quote that presents Harper as insane?

[gerryhatrick]

If August posted 10 of these a day, I'd denounce him as anti-Harper too (somewhat kidding here).

Noticed the exaggeration, but you got it backwards. You'd have to denounce August as pro-Harper, not anti. It's a very pro-Harper topic, cleverly disguised!

[geoffrey]

If August posted 10 of these a day, I'd denounce him as anti-Harper too (somewhat kidding here).

Noticed the exaggeration, but you got it backwards. You'd have to denounce August as pro-Harper, not anti. It's a very pro-Harper topic, cleverly disguised!

In a round-about, if Harper can't do it no one can way, I suppose it is.

[jdobbin]

If Harper is defeated in the next election, and it's increasingly likely that he will be, I think that it will be the signal that Canada is ungovernable. The different regions of the country, urban and rural, linguistic and religious, simply cannot compromise any more.

I don't believe that is true. I think that Harper should focus on taxes and the economy and create environmental policy that pushes new technology for cost savings and emissions controls. As far as foreign policy goes, the Conservatives have to be wary of Afghanistan and watch what they say on Middle Eastern policy. The support Harper believes we get from being tough in the world front doesn't gain votes in Canada. And NATO seems unimpressed either given their lack of support for Canada out on the frontlines.

Harper has to focus the message and not make promises that he really doesn't intend to keep like income trusts, crossing the floor and Senate appointments.

Almost all of Harper's policies aside from tax and the economy do not resonate with Quebec. He needs to get in touch with Quebec in a way that doesn't alienate the base.

[blueblood]

Interesting post, Canada can be governable, barely, if the Liberals didn't have such an abysmal arrogant attitude towards rural Canada, they would not get majorities but huge majorities, but that's not going to happen. My opinion is that this country is too vast and too many different cultures to have only a few parties represent them all. Canada has so-cons, libertarians, liberals, socialists, the french, the prairies, ontario, BC, Newfoundland, and the maritimes and they all need to be represented. I'd almost suggest abolishing political parties and let MP's with their own agendas make up the government and pick the PM the same way they pick the Pope. Knowing that won't happen, I'd say the bloc has to go all they do is bog down parliament and the fact that they can't get much done is a waste of seats, they talk about what's doing best for Quebec not what's best for the country. A major shakedown is in order in Ottawa, I'm not sure what it is, but one needs to happen or we're doomed with this minority parliament partisan politics debacle.

[geoffrey]

Or a union of self-governing provinces, sharing mutual free trade, foreign policy and defense?

[Cameron]

Or a union of self-governing provinces, sharing mutual free trade, foreign policy and defense?

Now that sounds like an idea. Heck, let's just model it like the states...Gerry, what would you have to say if Canada was modeled like the states.

[geoffrey]

Or a union of self-governing provinces, sharing mutual free trade, foreign policy and defense?

Now that sounds like an idea. Heck, let's just model it like the states...Gerry, what would you have to say if Canada was modeled like the states.

Actually.... Canadian provinces already have more autonomy than US states. It'd be moving away from the US model.

[blueblood]

hmm, an oligarchy of premiers, better than the senate and MPs, we'd save a pile of money. I don't mind socialist policies as long as they are financially sound. I also believe that the silent majority should wake up, catering to special interest groups is killing our country, throwing money at them instead of boosting the economy is going to bite us.

[Canadian Blue]

If Harper were to only focus on his 5 priorities he would probably see his support going up. But now that foreign affairs has taken the spotlight his popularity has gone down. I'd reccomend Harper to take a few actions. First would be to try and hammer out a deal with the NDP to bring about a much better environmental plan that could be accepted by both parties. The second would be to start focusing more on the law and order agenda, and the third would be fixing the fiscal imbalance before the next budget.

If Harper were to show any progress on these issues, he has a fighting chance to get a majority government.

[geoffrey]

and the third would be fixing the fiscal imbalance before the next budget.

That's about as possible and likely as curing world hunger and all the lepers by next budget.

[Mimas]

If Stephen Harper is defeated in the next election, what will that mean?

That will simply mean that voters have had enough time to realize what Harper really is about. It will mean that his the base of his support in BC and the Praries have realized that he is not a populist and that he doesn't even believe in god. In fact he is a control freak, who doesn't give a c**p about democracy, the west, etc. but is only interested in being in power and in complete control and that he's gone through life stabbing his friends in the back (Preston Manning being only one example). In other words, they may just realize that they are just being used. I think that the income trust bomb woke up a lot of people who've been fooled into thinking that he is an honest guy. It was quite a shock for quite a few to realize that he lied about it. I am quite convinced that he's hit his peak in every region of the country except Quebec. Quebecers have been so busy with separatism and the Bloc that they don't know a thing about him and they are the only ones he can still fool. So I expect very, very generous spending in Quebec between now and the next election because Quebec is his only hope.

[Mimas]

Or a union of self-governing provinces, sharing mutual free trade, foreign policy and defense?

Now we are talking! I'd go for that as long as Alberta adopts a currency other than the Canadian dollar.

Unfortunately, Canada is designed to fail. There is far too much power in the provinces and for provincial politicians it is essential that they set their electorate against the rest of Canada. Every provincial politician blames the Feds and the other provinces for all his province's problems. The population of every province is convinced that they are getting the worst deal in the confederation. The Feds have their hands tied because they really have no control over domestic affaires. So even though I'd prefer to give the Feds a lot more control to keep the country together, it just ain't gonna happen. The provinces will continue to pull apart and the country will become more divided. We are just killing Quebec's culture and we aren't nearly cultured enough for them, Alberta is too rich for the rest of us and we are just ripping them off, the Maritimes just don't get the respect they deserve...it will never end. So the next best option is to give up on being together and go our separate ways. I wish Ontario would go first, just to see Alberta and Quebec at each others throats. Just kidding. But seriously, Canada died the day the BNA was signed. It is a country designed to fail. It's a miracle it's still holding together. Since the provinces disagree on foreign policy and defense too, I don't really see a union of self-governing provinces sharing anything aside from free trade. So let's just call them countries and get it over with.

[normanchateau]

The only conclusion is that Canada cannot have a protestant, anglophone, conservative PM from Alberta. Harper is the only person who can bridge the difference between Western and Central Canada and rural and urban Canada. If he can't do it, no one can.

Being conservative is not his problem but being a SOCIAL conservative puts him on the fringes of Canadian society in the same way that being too far left would put a would-be PM on the fringes. CPC needs to face the facts and next time pick a leader who is not a so-con. Even Stockwell Day, who was a so-con on many issues, favoured marijuana decriminalization.

[scribblet]

Being conservative is not his problem but being a SOCIAL conservative puts him on the fringes of Canadian society in the same way that being too far left would put a would-be PM on the fringes. CPC needs to face the facts and next time pick a leader who is not a so-con.

Here we go again, repeat a lie often enough and the masses will believe it - Lenin would be proud.,

[cybercoma]

Joe Clark got nine months. Martin got about two years. Meighen got a year and a half. Turner got two months. After Macdonald's death, there were four PMs in succession: The most tragic was John Thompson (he got exactly two years).

Will Stephen Harper go into Canadian history in a similar way? There's a strong likelihood and here's why I think so.

First, consider this evidence which I posted in another thread but I want to post here to make my case:

Much ink has been spilled on the "fossil of the day" award which was given to Conservative environment minister Rona Ambrose at this year's U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Activists complain that the Canadian government deserved the dubious distinction for its inaction on addressing greenhouse gases.

As one of my readers points out, this is not the first time that Canada has earned the "fossil of the day" award. At last year's UNFCCC conference in Montreal, Mr. "gavel banger" himself, then-minister of the environment (a Liberal), received the "fossil of the day award" too! (do an inline search for "fossil")

News stories on (Conservative) Rona Ambrose receiving the fossil of the day award: 193

News stories on (Liberal) Stephane Dion receiving the fossil of the day award: none

Stephen Taylor

The English-Canada, Toronto-centred media knows it has its teeth into the Tory carcass. It was looking to make the kill.

In Quebec, in the Montreal press, the Tories have gone beyond ridicule and now are presented as insane. (I randomly choose the first media quote google offers.)

Peu après la tuerie de Dawson, le ministre de la Sécurité publique, Stockwell Day, a dû expliquer pourquoi il entendait abolir en partie le registre des armes à feu.

La Presse

Then there's this recent Decima poll that has attracted attention elsewhere on this forum:

Respondents to a new national poll placed the federal Liberals ahead of the Conservatives for the first time in almost a year.

However, the narrow Liberal lead in the Decima poll was within the three-percentage-point margin of error, which means it’s too close to say who’s really ahead.

The Grits had the support of 33 per cent of respondents nationally, while the Tories had 31 per cent, the NDP had 15 per cent and the Green party had 10.

CanWest

Then we have posters like our own Geoffrey who disavow their support for Harper and the Tories. Harper is losing his base.

----

It's a political truism of parliamentary democracy that oppositions don't win; governments defeat themselves.

In that sense, I'm going to ask a question and I don't mean to be partisan and I hope it's not interpreted that way: If Stephen Harper is defeated in the next election, what will that mean?

In particular, if Harper is defeated by Dion (My own personal guess for next Liberal leader), what will that mean? Even if Ignatieff or Rae defeats Harper? (My own guess is that Kennedy won't be leader.)

The only conclusion is that Canada cannot have a protestant, anglophone, conservative PM from Alberta. Harper is the only person who can bridge the difference between Western and Central Canada and rural and urban Canada. If he can't do it, no one can. Rae, Ignatieff and Dion are urban, central Canadians. Their claim to fame is that they understand Quebec. Dion is from Quebec and speaks with a French accent.

If Harper is defeated in the next election, and it's increasingly likely that he will be, I think that it will be the signal that Canada is ungovernable. The different regions of the country, urban and rural, linguistic and religious, simply cannot compromise any more.

I'm all for banning the BQ as a federal party since they do not serve a federal interest and do nothing more than split the vote.

[cybercoma]

Oh and the federal government lost Canada when it started getting its hands in provincial matters -- hence the crack about BQ. IMHO, the only way to solve the issues we're currently facing is for the government to stop dictating to provincial governments how to run their jurisdictions. Education, health care, roads, social services, etc. etc. were all given to the provinces for a reason. Canada is so vast you need a government that's close to home to look after these things. Until the federal government stops "nationalizing" funding and services, our country will continue to fall apart.

[normanchateau]

Being conservative is not his problem but being a SOCIAL conservative puts him on the fringes of Canadian society in the same way that being too far left would put a would-be PM on the fringes. CPC needs to face the facts and next time pick a leader who is not a so-con.

Here we go again, repeat a lie often enough and the masses will believe it.

Is that why you keep repeatedly claiming that he's NOT a social conservative?

How do you explain him supporting legislation which permits Canada to imprison young people for possession of even a few grams of marijuana. Does he think their employment prospects are enhanced by a permanent criminal record?

[Canadian Blue]

Economic consequences, lost jobs due to increased waits at the border. Not to mention as was pointed out police needing to be able to charge people with driving while high, and having something which could hold up in court.

Their are more reasons then simply saying he's a SoCon. I'd rather wait till we have a different administration in the Whitehouse then lose thousands of jobs so a high school pothead can get high.

[Argus]

Activists complain that the Canadian government deserved the dubious distinction for its inaction on addressing greenhouse gases

del

In Quebec, in the Montreal press, the Tories have gone beyond ridicule and now are presented as insane. (I randomly choose the first media quote google offers.)Peu après la tuerie de Dawson, le ministre de la Sécurité publique, Stockwell Day, a dû expliquer pourquoi il entendait abolir en partie le registre des armes à

del

Then there's this recent Decima poll that has attracted attention elsewhere on this forum: Respondents to a new national poll placed the federal Liberals ahead of the Conservatives for the first time in almost a year.

You're reading a lot into very little. Harper's popularity isn't falling except in Quebec, because Quebecers are, by and large, ignorant of world realities - or even national realities, and much given to shallow, mindless naval gazing.

The two items hurting him most in Quebec are Afghanistan and Kyoto, neither of which anyone but an imbecile should really lay at his door. He didn't get us into Afghanistan, and he didn't sit by for 13 years while our emissions rose by nearly 30%. Now you can say that he has supported the troops and mission in Afghanistan, and that his government has been less than impressive over greenhouse gas emissions. However, to suggest people will, because of this, run out and vote Liberal is to suggest those people are complete morons.

The phrase you quoted was on the topic of the gun registry, where in Quebec, for some bizarre reason, people seem to believe that the gun registry protects them from events like Dawson College - even though it clearly didn't. Much press has been given some idiotic Dawson student who got himself shot, and his "campaign" to save the gun registry. He seems to not know the difference between the gun registry and gun control, but then most Quebecers seem similarly ignorant. The Canadian media is dishonest and unprofessional, but they're paragons of journalistic virtue compared to the Quebec media. Quebec papers make no secret that their headlines and stories are slanted and dishonest, depending on the political and ideological views of the people who write them. There is little truth to be had there.

So the three things doing him damage, the billion dollar gun registry which doesn't work, Afghanistan, and Kyoto, are not his fault, and only an idiot would blame him for what he's doing. So what you're saying is that Quebecers are idiots. Which I won't argue with.

As for the idea Harper is the last great white hope, that's silly. His biggest problem in English Canada is not that he's a social conservative from the west, it's that he possesses nothing even approaching charisma.

[Argus]

If Stephen Harper is defeated in the next election, what will that mean?

That will simply mean that voters have had enough time to realize what Harper really is about. It will mean that his the base of his support in BC and the Praries have realized that he is not a populist and that he doesn't even believe in god. In fact he is a control freak, who doesn't give a c**p about democracy, the west, etc. but is only interested in being in power and in complete control and that he's gone through life stabbing his friends in the back (Preston Manning being only one example). In other words, they may just realize that they are just being used. I think that the income trust bomb woke up a lot of people who've been fooled into thinking that he is an honest guy. It was quite a shock for quite a few to realize that he lied about it. I am quite convinced that he's hit his peak in every region of the country except Quebec. Quebecers have been so busy with separatism and the Bloc that they don't know a thing about him and they are the only ones he can still fool. So I expect very, very generous spending in Quebec between now and the next election because Quebec is his only hope.

You used up an awful lot of words basically saying you have no idea what's going on, politically, in this country.