Harper's first year results & prospects

[Edward Campbell]

Here is a pessimistic appraisal of Stephen Harper’s first year from Lawrence Martin in today’s (21 Dec 06) Globe and Mail.  I, personally, find Marin:

• Consistently anti-Harper, or when he cannot be all-out anti at least very sceptical; and

• Ill informed, to be charitable, about foreign policy and defence issues like Afghanistan.

That being said, I think he is an astute political commentator.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061221.wxcomartin21/BNStory/National/home

Are we better off today than a year ago? Just ask the people

LAWRENCE MARTIN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

For Christmas, how about a big tablet under the PM's tree, spelled h-u-m-b-l-e? If he swallows it, he'll likely have a much better year in '07.

The way he's been comporting himself lately, with his cocksure air, you'd think Stephen Harper, our newsmaker of the year, our one-man government, was coming off a long triumphant season.

The opposite might be a little closer to cinéma-vérité. He need not take the word from the dreaded pundits on this. There's a better standard of measure out there called the people.

According to a host of recent surveys, his government finishes 2006 with one of the lowest approval ratings on record for a first-year performance. The Conservatives are in the low 30s in percentage support, having fallen several points since the start of the year when they were pushing the 40 barrier.

Not many Canadian governments have fared worse. One that can be recalled was Joe Clark's plunging minority of 1979. It ended that year in the high 20s.

Mr. Harper had a splendid opportunity. The honeymoon tradition of the first year in office. His five priorities. The rudderless state of his chief opposition party. A hopeful public. But he didn't capitalize.

When you look at the big barometer question -- is this country better off today than it was a year ago? -- the answer hardly pops up positive.

Start with the high-priority domestic issue, which is the environment and global warming. On this one, it's been a year of dawdling. We unhooked ourselves from an international plan, Kyoto, without replacing it with anything credible. That someone as sharp as Mr. Harper could have stumbled so badly on this file, with so many neon warnings, is mystifying.

The biggest foreign issue is Afghanistan. We started the year in low-scale combat with no long-term commitment. Without sufficient debate, without sufficient knowledge of the possible consequences, the Conservatives rushed to embrace an extended war commitment. There is little progress. There is no end in sight to the conflict. We're in a fix we weren't in before.

Then there's China. As every eighth-grader knows, China is where the world is heading. Not this government. In 2006, Canada moved from good relations with China to a semi-chill.

On unity, Mr. Harper went from calling the contortions of vocabulary on Quebec's stature a semantic debate to handing it nation status. There is a chance that the gambit -- yet another bid to placate the province -- might prove beneficial. There's also a chance that Quebec will interpret the new wording as a meaningful measure, as opposed to a symbolic one, and demand concomitant powers.

The cat's among the pigeons. Things felt more comfortable before we entered this uncharted territory.

One troublesome development on the unity file centres on our native peoples. The Harper government trashed the Kelowna accord, Paul Martin's pride and joy, and replaced it with nothing. Its demise, for the flimsiest of reasons, is a slap in the face to our native peoples and a likely harbinger of new stresses. To the list of trashed accords, Kyoto and Kelowna, add kids. The national child-care agreement was scrapped in favour of a handout for parents to use as they please.

The year hasn't been without its advances. The Accountability Act -- even though Mr. Harper has been an embarrassment in terms of transparency and democratization -- has many good features. At the risk of setting a dubious precedent, a softwood lumber accord was reached. There was the wise decision, even if it contradicted a campaign promise, to shut down income trusts and sound economic management by the best man on the Harper team, Jim Flaherty.

The old Grit warrior Jack Pickersgill once cracked that Conservative governments are like having the mumps -- something you endure once but never want to go near again. This government doesn't yet qualify for such status. It could turn the corner and find success.

On the big measuring sticks, however, its performance in 2006 was a disappointment. A Prime Minister took office thinking he could do everything himself. He governed not like he had a minority but a landslide.

The result -- with only one of three Canadians supporting his government -- should give him pause. This country is too big for one man to run, even if you're Stephen Harper.

lmartin@globeandmail.com

My take:

• Harper was elected, primarily, because -

1. Canadians were sick and tired of the Liberals – not just corruption, but that was a big deal, but, also, the Chrétien/Martin feud soured Canadians on the Liberal brand; and

2. Harper ran an excellent, tightly focused campaign.

• Harper started off like gangbusters – with some, but certainly not much, good-will.  He kept promises and look moderate and decisive.

• The Afghanistan debate was a cynical political ploy by Harper to embarrass the Liberals.  It worked to his very short term advantage but neither he nor his ministers have been willing or, perhaps able to enunciate the ’Why?’ of the mission to the satisfaction of most Canadians.  perhaps they don’t know why; perhaps embarrassing the Liberals was and remains the full extent of the Conservative’s commitment to Afghanistan.  The PM’s year end interviews give some hope to think otherwise but his resounding silence on where and how Afghanistan fits within a broader Canadian foreign policy vision is worrisome.

• The Conservative’s handling of China has been inept and, I think motivated solely by a desire to keep the Lou Dobbs style social conservatives/economic illiterates (who make up a substantial minority of the old Reform/Alliance base) on side.  It also indicates, to me –

1. Peter McKay and the foreign affairs bureaucrats are powerless and nearly voiceless, too, in Ottawa; and

2. There is no overarching foreign policy vision.

(That being said, I would not mind silencing the foreign affairs bureaucracy, for a while, since I believe it has declined, precipitously, in quality over the past 15 - 20 years, starting under Mulroney and accelerating under Chrétien.  In time, however, starting soon, I hope Foreign Affairs should be rebuilt – with the same sort of top drawer people who are in PCO and Finance.  Entry into the DFAIT bureaucracy should be based, primarily, on merit, measured against strict, defined standards, as it is in PCO and Finance – that is not, now, the case.)

• Martin, like many others, is right: if he wants to stay in office, even with another minority, Harper must recognize that the environment is a huge issue for Canadians.  It doesn’t matter if the science (of global warming, itself) is suspect; it doesn’t matter that Kyoto was an EU attempt to scam the Americans and is a colossal waste of time and money; it doesn’t matter if Canada’s contributions to climate change (causes and cures) are trivial to non-existent.  What matters is; Canadians think (in their own muddled, ill informed way) that climate change is a big deal so, for politicians, it must be a big deal.

• Martin is, yet again, out to lunch on Afghanistan and his ignorance tarnishes an otherwise useful analysis.  We were in the present ‘fix’ the instant Paul Martin sent Canada to Kandahar – nothing the Tories did, or failed to do, has altered the ‘fix.’

• I think, and I am waaaaay out of my lane, that Harper might have been headed on the right track re: aboriginals – on some path to force aboriginals to decide for themselves how they plan to exist in the 21st century.  But, as others have pointed out, here in Army.ca and in the media and academe, aboriginal politics in Canada is, in the main and under successive Conservative, Liberal, NDP and PQ provincial and federal governments and under successive first nations regimes all about inter-regime blame and buck-passing.  Canadians, by and large are content to send good money after bad so long as the festering problems are kept out of the public eye.  I thought Jim Prentice might come forward with a useful set of initiative which, while annoying first nations’ entrenched, traditional leaders might actually do something for first nations’ peoples.  Now it appears he is going to shuffled into lightweight Rona Ambrose’s portfolio.

I agree with Martin that all is not lost for Harper.  The Liberals are/may be out front in polls largely because the mainstream media (since Labour day) gave fawning, gavel to gavel coverage of the Liberal leadership race, convention and aftermath.  Even the Globe and Mail will give some attention to Dion’s warts and the Liberal Party’s continued vacuous policies.  Harper can, however, seize a handful of issues and regain Canadians’ confidence.

But, consider also that so long as the BQ have something of a stranglehold on 35 of Québec’s 75 seats and until the next redistribution of seats further weakens Québec’s political voice a majority in the House of Commons (155 seats) must be found from the 273 seats which are ‘up for grabs.’  If you accept that, for the same time frame, the irreducible minimums are:

1. BQ: 35 seats in Québec;

2. Conservatives: 35 seats in the West;

3. Liberals: 35 seats in Ontario and Atlantic Canada; and

4. NDP: 15 seats in Ontario and BC:

Then either the Liberals or Conservatives must find 120 seats, for a majority, from a pool of 188; that means taking nearly ⅔ of the ’available’ seats in a general election.  That’s about like saying that a bare majority, in Canada today, requires landslide like election results.  We may be in for minority governments for quite some time.


Edit: typos in 'I think, and I am waaaaay out of my lane, that Harper' and '4. NDP: 15 seats in Ontario and BC:'

 

[ArmyRick]

my grading of Harper is B+. Not perfect but nobody is.

 

[midget-boyd91]

I think Hillier should go into politics after he's done with CDS  ;D

 

[Elwood]

I think Hillier should go into politics after he's done with CDS  ;D

That would be very interesting to see!

Now concerning that brash article...

I think a no-name reporter's harsh criticism such as Lawrence Martin's desperate story in the Globe and Mail is a significant sign to what the Conservatives have done over the past year. If a Liberal-supporting, near-retirement, loser-journalist is trying to desperately bash your name... it means that you have done quite well.

No one can deny that the history classes of the future will define Stephen Harper as the Prime Minister who silenced Quebec separatism, overcame the corrupt Liberal government (and forced the Liberal government to flush out it's corruption), and the Prime Minister who helped to rejuvenate the Canadian Military (among other things).

Stephen Harper's fault is that he's such a down-to-earth, do-the-right-thing guy. It's easy to bash his name, but I think more successful reporters would attest to the Conservative's strengths and focus more on how hard the Liberals have to try to give everything they have to attempt to win the next Federal election...

 

[Brad Sallows]

Criticism seems to sum up as, "Harper's government met 4 of its 5 major commitments, but failed to keep any of the preceding Liberal governments' commitments and promises."

Am I to suppose a Liberal majority, if elected, will close all the files listed by Martin within 11 months?  Am I to believe an incoming Liberal government would honour the promises and commitments of an outgoing CPC government?  (It would be amusing to know what fraction of money spent to acquire helicopters was expended in order to avoid acquiring certain helicopters.)  The propaganda game goes on.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The lieberals never fulfill. They simply carry them (can't really call them promises, more like, 'maybe....someday, if we really have to') in the same old red book, from election to election to garner votes from the shorts sighted and forgetful.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

If the Globe and Mail says he sucks then we should all be rejoicing....he's gettin up the noses of the left wing elites that have run the country since Pinko Pete took office and can't believe that the rest of us rubes have given up on their bankrupt philosophy. Go get em Stephen...you're doing a great job. ;D

 

[Mr. Proulx]

sounds to me the article is a big page of bias from the left wingers play book

 

[mjohnston39]

The result -- with only one of three Canadians supporting his government -- should give him pause. This country is too big for one man to run, even if you're Stephen Harper.

So, about the same support the liberals and their post convention boost is starting to go soft...

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3308

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

So, about the same support the liberals and their post convention boost is starting to go soft...

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3308

No wonder. Dion has already flip flopped on his Afghan position. He said he'd defeat Harper on that and then within two days backed up on that one. I was trying to listen to what he was saying on the news the other night and besides the language problem...which will be significant for him...he didn't seem to make any sense at all. Just one more Chretien era hack whose fuzzy thinking is hard to follow INMHO.

 

[midget-boyd91]

Dion has already flip flopped on his Afghan position. He said he'd defeat Harper on that and then within two days backed up on that one

I personally think that he flopped on the Afghan position because bringing down the government on account of the mandate was something that Duceppe stated he would do, and Dion really didn't want to rely on the Bloc in order to make their first major decision since the convention.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm a card carrying Conservative who donates a sum which gets much closer to the upper legal limit than to zero.

I never underestimate the Liberal Party of Canada.  It is the most successful political machine in modern democratic history.  It will govern Canada again and again and again, starting sooner than I might wish.

I also never overestimate the Canadian voter.  Campaigning down is one of the Liberals' more successful tactics.

Conservatives who pooh-pooh Lawrence Martin, the Globe, etc are whistling past the graveyard.

 

[Kirkhill]

Conservatives who pooh-pooh Lawrence Martin, the Globe, etc are whistling past the graveyard.

I have a vivid recollection of Lawrence Martin during the 2004 election on the day that the news was full of Stephen Harper's response to the claim that Paul Martin supported paedophiles.  He was leading a three way discussion with two other "opinion leaders" at the side of Harper's bus. The three were talking about Harper's response which had been to try to walk away from the "kitten eater" moment while trying to stay true to the spirit of the discussion - the Conservatives were accusing the Liberals of being soft on Paedophiles and Paul Martin was the lead messenger for the Liberals.

The other two essentially couldn't find a story.  They felt that Harper had effectively dowsed the flames.

Martin vigorously jumped in with "Well we CAN say that ...." and proceeded to suggest that Harper hadn't been vigorous enough in his defense of Paul Martin.  That became the lead angle in the last three days of the campaign and the Conservatives lost.

I can't remember the title of the Documentary but it was a CBC documentary on the campaign and the media.  It doesn't seem to have been replayed much.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Edward.
I agree with your point. I too am a long time supporter of the Conservatives, PCs and now the CPC. The Liberals are indeed formidable opponents and not to be underestimated. Nor should the ignorance and ficleness of the Canadian Press core be underestimated. They love to play king maker and king toppler. I think Chantal Hebert's column this morning is very astute to what the political landscape looks like as we come into the New Year and I think Mr Harper is working it very well. It's delicate though any "disturbance in the Force" could change things in a heartbeat.

Quebec clues point away from early federal vote

CHANTAL HEBERT

CONNECT the end-of-session dots on Parliament Hill and in Quebec City and you will find a timeline that could see Stephen Harper’s minority government stay in place beyond its second budget and possibly well into next year.

Under the configuration that is emerging in both capitals this week, Quebec Premier Jean Charest could extend the life of the Conservative government by making it politically unpalatable for the federal opposition parties to bring Harper down over the budget.

But one good turn would deserve another. In exchange, the 2007 Conservative budget would act as the springboard to the Quebec election rather than as the immediate launching pad for the next federal campaign.

First things first, though: It is now clear that the Harper government will not fall over an early vote about the Afghan mission. If the Bloc Québécois does make good on Gilles Duceppe’s recent threat to table a no-confidence motion on the issue early next year, it will likely find itself isolated in its censure of the government.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said Monday that he would not support a Bloc motion on Afghanistan. The NDP is reserving judgment. It has not escaped the notice of its federal opponents that the Bloc has left a trail of blood over the course of its flip-flops on the resolution dealing with Quebec’s national character. The other parties are not at all eager to help heal Duceppe’s self-inflicted wounds.

In a more general way, the New Democrats are not in the mood for a quick election. If Jack Layton can find a way to avoid toppling Harper on the budget, he probably will. Between now and then, though, Layton will be getting a lot of conflicting free advice on the best way to preserve his party from possible annihilation. Some will argue that he needs to buy time at all costs while others will say that he cannot afford to be seen as extending the life of the Conservative government even by a day, let alone half a year or more.

The NDP should find solace in the fact that it may not be the only opposition party that faces a gut-wrenching choice at budget time. At a year-end news conference on Monday, Charest said he wanted to see the federal budget before calling a provincial election. But the premier has already put his government in campaign mode and he is contemplating sending Quebec to the polls as soon as possible.

Coincidentally, the word on Parliament Hill is that Harper is now looking at a February date for his budget. Charest expects the federal budget to include a good enough deal on the fiscal balance to give him the momentum to go into a campaign. If that turns out to be the case, Charest would move quickly, possibly within hours of Harper’s budget.

Faced with a snap Quebec election call, Duceppe would be hard pressed to bring down the minority Conservative government. There is only one sovereigntist election machine and the PQ and the Bloc cannot use it at the same time.

Dion would also find himself in a bind. A Liberal crusade against a Harper budget that was embraced wholeheartedly by Charest would pit Dion against the federalist premier of Quebec at the very time when the latter is fighting for re-election. To all intents and purposes, he would end up in the same camp as the Bloc and the PQ.

Such a contrary Liberal alignment would serve the Conservatives well in their own subsequent re-election campaign in Quebec, as would the battle fatigue of sovereigntist troops. Under the best-case scenario for Harper, Duceppe would have to jump from a morale-depleting, lost provincial campaign into a federal one. Thus, if Charest won, his victory could open the way for a one-two election punch, with a federal vote taking place on the heels of the Quebec one.

More than ever next year, Charest and Harper’s fates will be inextricably linked. Both their futures could hinge on the next federal budget. It has never been clearer that Harper needs to help Charest to help himself. But that also involves a big leap of faith on the prime minister’s part. He has to believe that a favourable federal budget will be enough for Charest to come from behind and beat long odds to secure a second mandate.

Chantal Hébert is national affairs columnist for the Toronto Star

 

[Griffin]

Wasn't Lawrence Martin the news reporter that authored the biography on Jean Chretien? 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Wasn't Lawrence Martin the news reporter that authored the biography on Jean Chretien? 

Yes

----------

Here is more on the same – years end and future prospects – from the same source from today’s (23 Dec 06) Globe ad Mail.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061222.wxcomartin23/BNStory/specialComment/home

Move out the duds, bring in the doers

LAWRENCE MARTIN
From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Every day when the House of Commons is sitting, there is a full meeting of the Stephen Harper cabinet. His team assembles before Question Period, and House Leader Rob Nicholson is prepared with a list of subjects that are expected to be raised. Individual ministers are asked to provide answers to the likely questions, and the Prime Minister and others offer their thoughts.

In this way, this government is better prepared for its Commons confrontation than any other. Before Question Period, previous prime ministers would assemble only with their communications teams and a couple of senior officials.

Having more cabinet meetings than any predecessor ensures that Mr. Harper's team is on the alert. It keeps the agenda under control and gives the quarterback more opportunity to assess the strengths and weaknesses of his players.

Mr. Harper has been completing the grades for 2006 and will soon put in place a new and likely stronger cabinet team to take him into 2007, yet another likely election year. The change is coupled with a new turn on the public relations front. Mr. Harper has wisely shed his bunker mentality and is reaching out to many in the media to build a comfortable rapport.

For cabinet revitalization, he will be looking to move out the duds and bring in the doers.

Many are of the view that a big switch is needed at Defence and Foreign Affairs. As Minister of Defence, Gordon O'Connor has garnered consistently weak reviews. With a demeanour of that of a Brezhnev-era politburo member, Mr. O'Connor comes across as a relic of the Cold War. He's brittle, surly, too old to identify with troops in the field, and has been embarrassed in the Commons with his non-answers on military procurement.

As a replacement, Mr. Harper could do a lot worse than Peter MacKay. He's got the young soldier's look, he's spirited and tough and articulate. His problem isn't his lack of skills — it's his having landed in the wrong portfolio. Foreign Affairs presented too steep of a learning curve for him. Defence won't.

For matters external, Mr. Harper could bring in his old friend Rob Nicholson. Like most before him, this Prime Minister likes to run his own global show. Mr. Nicholson would fit comfortably into the secondary role and be more discerning than Mr. MacKay.

On matters foreign, there also could be a change at International Trade. The incumbent, David Emerson, is not likely to run in the next election, given that he would lose. He may be asked to depart now, making way for James Moore, another British Columbian. Mr. Moore is only 30 but has a mind more seasoned than most 50-year-olds. He was one of his party's top five performers in opposition but was left out of the cabinet because of his age. It won't be a barrier this time.

As regards Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, the question is not whether she will leave that post, but who will replace her. Will Mr. Harper opt for one of his major lieutenants, Jim Prentice, who is now at Indian Affairs? Or, because the portfolio is important in terms of Quebec support, will he go with francophone Maxime Bernier, the Industry Minister viewed as one of the cabinet's rising stars? It's a tough but critical call.

This country is an energy superpower, but you would never know it given the low profile that Gary Lunn has kept at Natural Resources. Over at Citizenship and Immigration, Monte Solberg is an odd fit. But this high-powered little guy may be just the one for the energy slot.

The Prime Minister needs more female representation in his upper ranks, and now is the occasion for him to bring in Diane Ablonczy, who was left out of the cabinet in the first go-round, primarily because of her long-term allegiance to Preston Manning. It's time we had a culture minister from Western Canada. Ms. Ablonczy would be a wise choice to replace the underperforming Bev Oda.

There are certain ministers Mr. Harper doesn't have to touch. Jim Flaherty at Finance has done a remarkable job of smoothing over the roughhouse ideological stripes he showed at Queen's Park under Mike Harris. Stockwell Day has been a pleasant surprise, with his low-key competence in the delicate position of Public Safety Minister. John Baird, another graduate of the Harris government, is a blowtorch in the Commons, but no one should underestimate his smarts.

The Prime Minister is a talented quarterback with talented players. It's a question of finding the right positions for them, giving them the ball, and having them move, as all winning Canadian teams do, down both sides of the field.

lmartin@globeandmail.com

Way back when – a year ago – there was considerable discussion here on Army.ca re: Gordon O’Connor as MND in a prospective and then new Harper government.  Without going back to find and review that thread I will say that many members were skeptical of Mr. O’Connor’s political management skills – especially when applied to such a large, diverse department of government.  I agree with Martin – time for new blood.  The key to a good defence minister is, most emphatically, NOT military experience (recall Fredrick the Great on the experience of mules vs generalship).  DND is a big, sprawling department which impacts several others including, especially, foreign affairs and industry.  It has its own, unique, sub-culture – manifested, especially in the Canadian Forces.  It requires a very sound manager to direct the bureaucrats who craft defence policy and procurement plans, the admirals and generals who conduct operations.  I’m not sure McKay is the best choice.  I sense he does not have the confidence of the PM and the centre; with a war raging and big procurement plans in the offing the MND will need the confidence of both.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

That was actually a fairly good article. I'm sure the PM will keep his own counsel on this stuff and not be consulting MR Martin but some of the analysis was pretty sound me thinks.