Dion vs. Harper - Canada's Future?

[August1991]

Dion's mother (the source of his French passport) said this about her son:

"I knew he'd succeed one day or the other, because he's very tenacious. When he wanted something, he wouldn't let go, and when he gave himself a goal, he'd get there."

She experienced the doggedness firsthand. "He never gave up even when he asked me for permission and I said no."

She has said that her son's biggest handicap in politics may be his honesty.

"We raised our children to have courage and honesty -- to say what you think and to defend your idea, even if others don't like it," she said yesterday. "All I hope is that, like all my children, he's honest and true to himself -- and that he's happy."

G & M

[i'm reminded of the comment of Putin's father when Putin became Russian president: "My son will be a Tsar." As to the passport, Canadians should get use to this dual nationality idea. Canadians travel and marry abroad.]

I agree with the perception of Dion's Mom and a letter I read in Montreal's freebie Metro newspaper handout. Dion is tenacious and he will not give up power easily, even if the Liberals lose. Harper is no different. He too will not give up. Neither will go quietly into the night. These two guys will remain leader even if they lose an election (but we'll likely have minority governments giving both a reason to stay).

Canada, welcome to the future: Dion and Harper.

What is this future? Vincent Marissal in La Presse had a good take: Dion is a gauchiste and Harper is de droite. That's true - is that the future?

Today's La Presse was good for several reasons. Foglia's column was fun: Dion's election to PM will ensure Quebec's sovereignty and Foglia even has an A vs B analysis of Quebec society to support his view. Foglia's wrong. Simply put, Quebec is coming to grips with the idea that the federal Liberal Party has chosen Stéphane Dion as leader. Wow!

Now that we know the leaders, Dion intrigues English-Canada just as Harper intrigues Quebec. In fact, both men are intriguing on both sides, with reason. In Quebec, Dion is the father of the Clarity Act but it was Harper who created the idea. Dion is not anti-Quebec but Harper is more respectful of provincial rights. They both agreed on the Nation Motion but Dion wanted the word sociologique added.

Ontario is used to regional debates in Canada (Alberta/Nfld/Quebec independance/sovereignty etc) but it has never faced a debate about government. Harper and Dion offer such a debate. Harper is a government minimalist whereas Dion is a government interventionist.

It will be interesting to watch such a debate between an Albertan and a Quebecer, and to watch the Albertan defend provincial rights (firewalls) while the Quebecer argues for centralization (erasing internal borders). More, Harper will argue that the federal government is a botched solution to problems while Dion will argue that it's an essential tool in a civilized society.

If Ontarians (and the Toronto English-Canada media) believe that this is the end of separatism, they are mistaken. Ontario's Canada may have been hijacked by an Albertan and a Quebecer so its Canada is now in foreign hands.

We will have a debate about regional Canada but it will also be about government in Canada.

----

I think Dion is an honest person who has inherited a dishonest mess. Harper has the advantage that his party is an amalgam. Dion has the advantage that he is from central Canada. Harper has the advantage that he is on the right side of history. Harper understands economics and Dion's background in polisci and socio is useless. Dion's English is better than Harper's French.

Both are honest, ambitious, focused and tenacious. Both Dion and Harper got their leadership handed to them by default. I think both have the ability to change. Both care deeply about life and what they can do about it. Harper was born in 1959 and Dion in 1955.

I may be wrong but I think that when these two retire from the public debate, Canada will be a different country. But in the meantime, every person in Canada should wait and see what these two do.

[geoffrey]

If you weren't exactly right on with every prediction you make, I'd bet against you on this one.

Canadian's might pretend to enjoy debate, but they dislike politics. Threatening elections every week isn't how we take our tea. Someone is getting handed a majority, not next election, but 12 months later. The loser will retire and the next will step up... Kennedy for the Liberals... who for the CPC? Prentice? Either Harper or Dion will have a couple majorities to govern with.

(Now that would be refreshing... two western leaders... yikees!)

There is the potential for a few kinks in the plan. A uniting of the left is one... another division of the right is another. Alberta isn't so happy with Mr. Harper right now, he's on thin ice. Alberta is known to stab a party in the back in the blink of an eye... it only took one bad aircraft deal to shatter that ice with Mulroney... can Harper rebuild his Western base (without angering the Quebecois) or will he continue to betray his roots for Eastern Canada.

Are the NDP and the Liberals compatible?

What about the Bloc? What is there future? Do the sovereigntists have their 50.1% this time? Another failed referendum in the next 5 years... what does that mean to the PQ and BQ? Are they going to disappear? Are they going to be convinced that a conservative provincial power agenda is so worthy of their support that they fold? Can Harper push that envelope enough without destroying whatever Canada remains in the process... and maintain support in Ontario?

So many questions, so many variables. I doubt if we'll be able to predict exactly what's going to happen and why.

What if there is a terrorist attack in Canada? That'd change the political dynamic considerably.

What about a recession... a depression?

All I know for sure is that Canadians are sick of voting. They are going to pick someone to run with. Is Harper too dangerous, or is Dion too status quo?

[hiti]

Now that we know the leaders, Dion intrigues English-Canada just as Harper intrigues Quebec. In fact, both men are intriguing on both sides, with reason. In Quebec, Dion is the father of the Clarity Act but it was Harper who created the idea. Dion is not anti-Quebec but Harper is more respectful of provincial rights. They both agreed on the Nation Motion but Dion wanted the word sociologique added.

It surely was not Harper who created the idea of the Clarity Act.

So, who did create the Clarity Act?

To answer that, we would have to examine Harper’s original motion, Bill C-341, which he named the Quebec Contingency Act. The act sets out terms for a possible referendum question, just as the Clarity Act does. Also like the Clarity Act, it states that the question must be approved by parliament.

The issue with this section is that it is not a new idea. In fact academics had been debating this for some time previously, notably Pierre Legrasse and Jules Trusk. Neither Dion nor Harper came up with something original or innovative; they were simply building on the works of others.

Where the Clarity Act differs from the Quebec Contingency Act is in its definition of what constitutes a clear will on the part of Quebeckers. The Clarity Act not only speaks to the fact that a simple majority will not suffice for succession, but it address the conditions that parliament would use to asses the vote, an aspect that the Quebec Contingency Act does not refer.

This is where the Clarity Act is superior, but, once again, this notion is not original either. Many were concerned with Quebec separating from Canada with a simple 50% plus 1 majority. In fact, lawyer Guy Bertrand filed a private law suit against the Quebec government in 1995 demanding that future referendums which followed this paradigm be declared illegal, and thus void.

Basically, stating that either person was the sole intellectual contributor for the Clarity Act is false and dishonest. Stephane Dion created a bill that was more bold and covered more ground by addressing the concerns that many people shared, but built on the motion that Harper introduced earlier, which was the building on the work begun by others.

Neither party, nor either politician for that matter, can take full credit for the bill but the issue boils down to the simple fact of ownership. If Tories wish to take credit for Stephen Harper as being the architect of the Clarity Act, they should be prepared to take credit for it everywhere and that means taking credit for it in Quebec as well, something I would assume they are not apt to do.

http://towardsajustsociety.blogspot.com/20...of-clarity.html

So now we know. Steve is not the genius. Both he and Dion took an idea and Dion improved on it better and to a greater extent than Harper.

[August1991]

Hiti, I have reported your post to the moderator. You can't simply cut and paste text from another source and put it in a post. I thought you wrote the post above. You didn't. You should put such text in quotes.

Now to the content of your post. The question of how Quebec would secede is at least as old as Quebec's veto. The Supreme Court told Trudeau in 1982 that, in effect, there was no specific way to amend the Constitution. This decision led to many consequences but it was Harper that first suggested an act of Parliament to clarify how a province would secede. Chretien later picked up on the idea and then Dion got the act through parliament.

Thomas Edison said that genius is 2% inspiration and 98% perspiration. I'll give credit to Harper and Dion for accomplishing the hard task of putting on paper the easier, gadfly task of Guy Bertrand to argue the obvious.

But this misses the main point. Dion and Harper now face each other across the floor of the House of Commons. It is as if the two architects of the NEP faced one another but neither wanted to use its provisions. The Clarity Act is to Quebec what the NEP is to Alberta - a sign that the federal government has the ultimate power.

[At the risk of creating a thread drift (please someone start a new thread), how would Albertans react if they were told that they can secede from Canada but they can't take the oil, natural gas or tar sands with them? After all, the tar sands belong to Canadians - not Albertans.]

----

Harper and Dion see eye to eye on many federal issues. They disagree on provincial rights and whether Canada is a decentralized federation. They also disagree on the role of government in a civilized society.

All Canadians deserve to watch how two heartfelt Canadians disagree about their country. Their disagreement goes beyond regionalism but concerns also classical liberalism.

I think Canada will come out of this a changed and better country.

[hiti]

You reported my post to the moderator???????????????? Amazing!!! Simply pointing out what the rules are usually works quite well.

So why then is Harper not in Quebec claiming authorship for the Clarity Act???? He just allows Quebecers to blame Dion for the Clarity Act.

But please for the sake of accuracy, quit crediting Harper with the Clarity Act when in fact he came up with the Quebec Contingency Act which was inferior to the Clarity Act.

There weren't two NEP Acts, just one with one architects.

The Clarity Act is to Quebec what the NEP is to Alberta - a sign that the federal government has the ultimate power.

Please familiarize yourself with the Clarity Act. This Act only sets the conditions for any questions in a referendum. Nothing within the Act pertains to assets or mineral rights, etc. These are separate issues that would automatically belong to the province if the referendum question met the guidelines of the Clarity Act.

August, I can't help noticing that you have added to your post and those last three paragraphs are very familiar to what was written in one of the media yesterday. Do you have a link for that quote?

[Charles Anthony]

Please familiarize yourself with the Clarity Act. This Act only sets the conditions for any questions in a referendum. Nothing within the Act pertains to assets or mineral rights, etc. These are separate issues that would

You are missing the point.

The specific details (average citizens do not even know what they are anyway!) of the two deals are irrelevant. They are both symbolic of the federal government's long reach into regional affairs.

All I know for sure is that Canadians are sick of voting.

That can easily change.

We are living in an era where people can not passively take their well-being for granted compared to before.

For what it is worth (and I know I am not a regular Canadian by any stretch), I like elections. They are exciting. I find them a lot more exciting than the Olympics -- and I do not even vote anymore!

[hiti]

Please familiarize yourself with the Clarity Act. This Act only sets the conditions for any questions in a referendum. Nothing within the Act pertains to assets or mineral rights, etc. These are separate issues that would

You are missing the point.

The specific details (average citizens do not even know what they are anyway!) of the two deals are irrelevant. They are both symbolic of the federal government's long reach into regional affairs.

We have to have national standards in certain areas or else parts of the country will slip into third world conditions. The federal government has the constitution for all of Canada and therefore they get to dictate what wording will be used to bamboozle people into voting to separate.

The NEP was totally different and was about boosting Canadian ownership in the oil industry, to make the country a self-sufficient oil producer and to increase the federal share of energy revenue.

Now we have Harper wanting to restrict China owning Canadian companies, mostly oil companies. Isn't that interfering in regional affairs?

[scribblet]

There will always be a perception, rightly or wrongly, that Dion has divided loyalties, he should give up the French citizenship as the issue will not go away although I'm sure is loyalty is to the Liberal party more than a country. And really, just how and why should a Prime Minister be a citizen of another country?

I believe that a person holding public office in France cannot hold dual citizenship. http://www.editorialtimes.ca/

[g_bambino]

There will always be a perception, rightly or wrongly, that Dion has divided loyalties, he should give up the French citizenship as the issue will not go away although I'm sure is loyalty is to the Liberal party more than a country. And really, just how and why should a Prime Minister be a citizen of another country?

I believe that a person holding public office in France cannot hold dual citizenship. http://www.editorialtimes.ca/

I suspect his dual citizenship won't come up because I'd wager there are a number of MPs in the House who are themselves citizens of more than just Canada. And really, where does one draw the line? Once appointed to the Queen's Privy Council must one give up any other citizenship? Once one becomes an MP? MPPs? Mayors? Judges?

Dion has sworn to abide by Canada's laws and customs by affirming, numerous times, his allegiance to the Queen of Canada, who herself has sixteen nationalities (though no one citizenship). The law quoted at the blog site you reference says only that the French government holds the right to withdraw French citizenship from someone who is in a foreign army or public service and does not quit that job after being told to by the government to do so. It does not mention anything about a bar on French public officeholders having two citizenships, and is the same provision that was brought up when the Governor General-designate's French citizenship was made into an issue; at that time the French government essentially said it was an infrequently used power that probably wouldn't be exercised in Jean's case. Nothing was said when Dion was a Cabinet Minister, and I doubt anything would be said if he were to be in the Cabinet again as Prime Minister.

The only time this would truly become an issue is if Canada were to be at war with France; but, then, what would we do in any situation where Canadians also hold citizenship of a country we're at war with? That's really a matter for debate at the national level, not just about the prime minister, or Governor General, as an individual.

[jdobbin]

I think Dion is an honest person who has inherited a dishonest mess. Harper has the advantage that his party is an amalgam. Dion has the advantage that he is from central Canada. Harper has the advantage that he is on the right side of history. Harper understands economics and Dion's background in polisci and socio is useless. Dion's English is better than Harper's French.

I thought you once said that Dion was at the heart of the corruption of Quebec politics.

[jdobbin]

There will always be a perception, rightly or wrongly, that Dion has divided loyalties, he should give up the French citizenship as the issue will not go away although I'm sure is loyalty is to the Liberal party more than a country. And really, just how and why should a Prime Minister be a citizen of another country?

I believe that a person holding public office in France cannot hold dual citizenship. http://www.editorialtimes.ca/

As viewed by whom? Most Canadians don't even know who the Liberal leader is yet. Of those that do, most wouldn't have any idea he also had French citizenship. And of those that did, most probably could care less or question whether it made any difference.

Where does Dion maintain a home a family? In Canada.

[scribblet]

Two points are worth considering,.

1. The first point relates to the mainstream media, and their curious lack of interest in the fact that a andidate for a political leadership position, which in turn might result in him becoming the Prime Minister of Canada, is a citizen of both Canada and France.

Where were the media on this important issue during the many, many (painful, I might add) months of the Liberal leadership campaign? Where was the MSM's sense of concern, or perhaps their liberal bias led them to ignore it. We know if it had been a conservative what would have happened.

I do however, recall how Tom Long was trashed and baited and ridiculed by these same MSM masters, and their "news"-room and op-ed poodles during his Leadership run of the 'readed' Canadian Alliance.

The seemingly perpetual double standard, and lefty sentiments of our MSM goes on unchecked, simply another glaring example of their unprincipled bias.

If the issue of citizenship was important enough to take the lumber to Tom Long, DURING his leadership bid, then why was it not deemed to be of any importance at all regarding Mr. Dion's leadership run!

2. Secondly, we have the matter of dual citizenship, taken on its own merits when it comes to the Prime Ministership of a country (should I say Nation - ) To be the leader of a country, there can be no question whatsoever, of where your loyalties, your biases, and your responsibilities lie. For me and a whole lot of ther folks (it looks like, according to polls the past few days), there is no question that Mr. Dion will have to/must lose his French citizenship.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

[g_bambino]

To be the leader of a country, there can be no question whatsoever, of where your loyalties, your biases, and your responsibilities lie. For me and a whole lot of ther folks (it looks like, according to polls the past few days), there is no question that Mr. Dion will have to/must lose his French citizenship.

We've already had a PM with dual citizenship: John Turner. Born in the UK and an immigrant to Canada, after 1948 he held two citizenships.

Further, as I asked, are all members of the QPC then barred from having two citizenships? Just those who hold a ministerial portfolio? Or is it only whomever occupies the position of PM, an office that doesn't even technically exist. Then what of the Governor General? How about the Queen? Where does it stop?

[normanchateau]

Dion is tenacious and he will not give up power easily, even if the Liberals lose. Harper is no different. He too will not give up. Neither will go quietly into the night. These two guys will remain leader even if they lose an election (but we'll likely have minority governments giving both a reason to stay).

Assuming that Dion doesn't win a minority government and Harper does, do you really think CPC will keep Harper? Adscam provided CPC with their best ever shot of forming a majority government and if the best they can do is get yet another minority government next time, I anticipate CPC will start looking for a new leader.

A Conservative who is not a so-con like Harper would actually stand a chance of forming a majority government. Jim Prentice perhaps?

[blueblood]

Dion is tenacious and he will not give up power easily, even if the Liberals lose. Harper is no different. He too will not give up. Neither will go quietly into the night. These two guys will remain leader even if they lose an election (but we'll likely have minority governments giving both a reason to stay).

Assuming that Dion doesn't win a minority government and Harper does, do you really think CPC will keep Harper? Adscam provided CPC with their best ever shot of forming a majority government and if the best they can do is get yet another minority government next time, I anticipate CPC will start looking for a new leader.

A Conservative who is not a so-con like Harper would actually stand a chance of forming a majority government. Jim Prentice perhaps?

Danny Williams!!

[scribblet]

Danny Williams!!

If Harper wins a majority or retains a minority gov't, he will stay on, there are no plans as far as I know for another convention. If he loses badly there possibly ould be a convention as there would be about 4 years to do that. Considering that Harper is not seen by most reasonable people to be anything but a fiscal conservative (some say libertarian) my guess is he will stay on anyway. Most CPC (all that I know) do not want a 'so-con' as a leader, one reason why Diane Ablonsky didn't win.

As for the citizenship issue, Dion may not have a choice, according to Bourque:

The Government of France may have a bone to pick with one of its citizens. "Steph" Dion, now Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition here in Canada, would seem to no longer be entitled to French citizenship. That, according to French Law (Art.23-8), which states that a citizen loses French nationality when "filling an employment in a foreign army or public service or in an international organization of which France is not a member, or more generally providing his assistance to it, did not relinquish his employment or stop his assistance notwithstanding the order of the Government." On the other hand, who knows, perhaps La Republique will make an exception for the chance to have one of its own become Canada's next PM

[normanchateau]

Danny Williams!!

If Harper wins a majority or retains a minority gov't, he will stay on, there are no plans as far as I know for another convention. If he loses badly there possibly ould be a convention as there would be about 4 years to do that. Considering that Harper is not seen by most reasonable people to be anything but a fiscal conservative (some say libertarian) my guess is he will stay on anyway. Most CPC (all that I know) do not want a 'so-con' as a leader, one reason why Diane Ablonsky didn't win.

What if Harper wins a minority with less seats than the current number of CPC MPs? Hard to imagine that there wouldn't be pressure for another convention. With luck, the next CPC leader might actually not be a so-con.

Harper is not a libertarian. He favours criminalization of marijuana, i.e., permanent criminal records and potential jail time for simple possession. That's the standard so-con position. Dion favours decriminalization. The NDP and BQ favour decriminalization and the Greens favour outright legalization. Even Joe Clark and Stockwell Day favoured decriminalization.

[jbg]

There will always be a perception, rightly or wrongly, that Dion has divided loyalties, he should give up the French citizenship as the issue will not go away although I'm sure is loyalty is to the Liberal party more than a country. And really, just how and why should a Prime Minister be a citizen of another country?

I believe that a person holding public office in France cannot hold dual citizenship. http://www.editorialtimes.ca/

IMHO, most Liberals and Democrats (yes I am a Democrat) are more loyal to Continental Europe and political correctness than what's good for their own countries.

[normanchateau]

Considering that Harper is not seen by most reasonable people to be anything but a fiscal conservative

Then why do you suppose Preston Manning got rid of Stephen Harper as Finance critic and replaced him with Herb Grubel, a fiscally conservative economist?

Here's what Grubel thinks of Harper:

"Cutting the GST rather than business or personal income taxes may be good politics but it is definitely very bad economics," said Herb Grubel in the Vancouver Sun on November 22 nd 2005.

[betsy]

Hah! Funny how media were asking Dion how he can compete with Harper, when he (Dion) is percieved to lack in charisma!

Remember how they bashed Harper over his lack of charisma last year?

Wow! The media is worried how Dion can ooze next to my boy!

So next to Dion, Harper is looking goooood!

And from what reporter Fife described of Dion: he has the tendency to "micro-manage."

The same description they made of Harper!

So Harper vs Dion (I like to give Harper top billing please ).....this will be interesting!

[geoffrey]

For what it is worth (and I know I am not a regular Canadian by any stretch), I like elections. They are exciting. I find them a lot more exciting than the Olympics --

Nothing beats the olympics, not even an election.

Of course us politically minded folks like elections, it gives us something to talk about. But everyone else thinks they are practically a waste of time, the same old crooks telling the same old lies.

and I do not even vote anymore!

Because your in prision?!

[August1991]

If Harper wins a majority or retains a minority gov't, he will stay on, there are no plans as far as I know for another convention. If he loses badly there possibly ould be a convention as there would be about 4 years to do that. Considering that Harper is not seen by most reasonable people to be anything but a fiscal conservative (some say libertarian) my guess is he will stay on anyway. Most CPC (all that I know) do not want a 'so-con' as a leader, one reason why Diane Ablonsky didn't win.

Look at the situation objectively. Harper and Dion are going to stay where they are for a long time.

Whoever loses the next election, both Harper and Dion will stay on for at least another electoral cycle if not more. Neither Harper nor Dion is going to relinquish the party leadership easily since both are tenacious. They both like the job of political leader and both really like the job of PM.

Since I figure we're in for several minority governments, they'll both have the argument that they're really close to getting back into power or getting a majority.

So, this is the line up Canada will have for the next 10 or even 15 years: Harper vs. Dion.

Modern politics being what it is, either of the two could be gone tomorrow if some scandal explodes. But these two don't have any major flaws so I doubt that will happen. Harper can command his party but we haven't seen if Dion has what it takes to keep his caucus in line. I think he does. Canadians are just starting to get to know Harper and Dion is still an unknown.

[August1991]

Mr. Dion has barely warmed the Opposition leader's seat and already William Johnson, author of Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, is penning his biography. Mr. Johnson told this column he started as soon as Mr. Dion won and has secured a deal with publisher McClelland & Stewart. He has managed to get one Dion backroom operative to talk and thinks he will get the Liberal leader's co-operation. The biography will focus on Mr. Dion's intellectual development. Mr. Johnson is hoping to crank it out in four months.

National Post

Johnson may just have found his gravy ticket for the remainder of his life. And I'll bet his book about Dion is more interesting to read than his book about Harper.

Here's amazon.ca's publicity blurb for Johnson's book about Harper:

Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada sets out to dispel the myths and explain the facts about the leader of the official opposition. By his own admission, Harper is not comfortable with the typical role of political leader as baby-kissing, photo-op-seeking figurehead, and Johnson suggests that the reason for his unflattering portrayals in the media is his reluctance to do what's expected of such a figure. "An unusual trait for a politician," Johnson writes, "is his conviction that correct policies are more important than tactics for winning support and achieving power." If nothing else, Johnson maintains, Harper should be admired for standing by his convictions, unaffected by public opinion polls and influence from his own advisers, even when a degree of compromise might have increased his popularity.

The author chronicles with detail Harper's political beginnings, his stint--and his ensuing disenchantment--with the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives, the events that led to him becoming a key architect of the Reform party, and his rescue of the Canadian Alliance, which led to the merger with the Progressive Conservatives to create the new Conservative Party that he led into federal elections against Paul Martin's Liberals. With a different leader at the top but Harper behind the scenes, Canadians might very well have elected a Conservative government in 2004: one cannot help but feel from Johnson's account that Harper would be better appreciated as a back-room policy director, a role he may not relish, but may be essential if he is to continue in politics. --Eric Wilson

“The most important Canadian political book of the year.”

— Calgary Herald

“The book does a formidable job of exploring Stephen Harper’s mind. It is a first-rate intellectual history. . . . A well-constructed study that shines light on a fogbound public figure at a time when it is most important to know him.”

— Globe and Mail

“This is an important book for political junkies and others who are trying to understand recent Canadian political history.”

— Halifax Chronicle-Herald

“Thoughtful, thorough and often surprising. . . . the book rests its premises on solid ground.”

— London Free Press

What will M&S PR people say about Dion? What will William Johnson say about Dion?

William Johnson, like Paul Wells, wants to understand what has happened but I don't think he can - not yet. To Wells and Johnson, it seems too boring and their books are boring too. They write the books only for money - believing it will pay for a holiday with a girlfriend in Thailand or help to pay for their children's US university education.

Johnson and Wells should instead write books because they want to tell the truth. Like Dafoe.

[kimmy]

I found Warren Kinsella's comparison of Harper and Dion to be interesting, and I'll quote it at some length here:

A few Liberals, including a couple Liberal MPs who have publicly called me every name in the book (and, sometimes, vice-versa), asked me what I think will happen. They were polite, so these were my polite answers:

* Harper will do what we did to his team in 1993 and 2000 - call an election when we aren't ready. Why wouldn't he? I mean, giving your opponent time to rest, recruit and renew is never a good idea. So March for April, or April for May. He has the winning edge, at the moment.

* Why? Harper has the advantages of incumbency, money, readiness and discipline. He's a Hell of a campaigner. And he won't run his 2007 campaign like he ran his 2005-2006 campaign. Just as his 2005-2006 campaign wasn't like his 2004 campaign. He does the unexpected.

* But so does Stephane Dion (whose campaign was run brilliantly by Mark Marissen, by the way, and not anyone else). Dion's advantages? As the Tories and the Dippers will learn soon enough, he (like Harper) is disciplined, strategic and utterly focussed on the big prize. He senses that the country may not be ready to reward Liberals with power just yet - but he knows the country is still unwilling to give Harper the much-sought-after majority. He has a chance - a good one.

* The two men are very alike, having run into them once or twice, and having admired both. Plan-oriented, underestimated, ethical, shy, sometimes awkward, suspicious of political hoopla and excess emotion. Both Trudeauesque, in way, without the pirouettes. (And I note they both had Trudeau's constitutional view until last week's "nation" debacle, too. But that's a complaint for another day.)

What should you know about Stephane Dion and Stephen Harper? Well, when our 17-year-old nephew was killed this Summer - an only child, a remarkable young man who we miss every day - we heard from Stephane Dion and Stephen Harper. They were exceedingly kind.

That told me then, as now, that both share another a key attribute - they are both quiet, honest, decent men. And it is the country that will ultimately benefit from that - whomever wins.

I found that ... pleasant. Reassuring. Heartwarming, even.

It's refreshing to hear from someone who casts this as a battle between two decent men with different visions, rather than as a clash between regions, or integrity against corruption, or a compassionate man against a guy who secretly kills kittens for fun.

-k

[southerncomfort]

If Harper wins a majority or retains a minority gov't, he will stay on, there are no plans as far as I know for another convention. If he loses badly there possibly ould be a convention as there would be about 4 years to do that. Considering that Harper is not seen by most reasonable people to be anything but a fiscal conservative (some say libertarian) my guess is he will stay on anyway. Most CPC (all that I know) do not want a 'so-con' as a leader, one reason why Diane Ablonsky didn't win.

Look at the situation objectively. Harper and Dion are going to stay where they are for a long time.

Whoever loses the next election, both Harper and Dion will stay on for at least another electoral cycle if not more. Neither Harper nor Dion is going to relinquish the party leadership easily since both are tenacious. They both like the job of political leader and both really like the job of PM.

Since I figure we're in for several minority governments, they'll both have the argument that they're really close to getting back into power or getting a majority.

So, this is the line up Canada will have for the next 10 or even 15 years: Harper vs. Dion.

Modern politics being what it is, either of the two could be gone tomorrow if some scandal explodes. But these two don't have any major flaws so I doubt that will happen. Harper can command his party but we haven't seen if Dion has what it takes to keep his caucus in line. I think he does. Canadians are just starting to get to know Harper and Dion is still an unknown.

I'm in agreement with you here, I do not see Harper stepping down. I do not agree with everything any party does but I am not unhappy with Harper especially as he is proving to be holding the line on any radical socialist policies and events. I've never seen him as a social conservative which is why I find the numerous posts saying he is to be kinda weird.

As for the business with Preston Manning I am not an insider what I heard was he objected to Manning's socially conservative policies and unlike Manning or Stockwell Day Harper does not wear his religion on his sleeve. If Harper were to step down which ain't likely I do not see them electing anything but another moderate. Harper has sure surprised a lot of people they sure can't call him scary anymore - heck if anyone is scary its Dion as he could take the Liberals radicallyto the left.