My take on Harper....

[Cdn Blackshirt]

So far, I like most of what he is doing....

I would've preferred an income tax cut to a VAT tax cut because VAT tax cuts tend to stimulate spending (much of which is on foreign produced goods), while income tax cuts statistically lead to higher savings rates.

I'm not a fan of even pretending to buy into Kyoto because I think it's junk science.

I'm not a fan of the recent interest expense write-off change for debt funding foreign acquisitions.  At present Canadian corporations are being bought up regularly.  For our remaining institutions to NOT be able to grow on a global scale with foreign acquisitions of their own is dumb....especially for an economist.

That all being said, I've been gravely disappointed with his persona.  I expected him to get out and lead, and instead he has really hidden at key times. 

1)  The prisoner handover issue.
2)  The Shane Doan "racial slur" issue
3)  The Danny Williams being a punk issue

I really wanted to see a guy step up and when there are misstatements, lies and misrepresentation, instead of letting our left-leaning media go into a frenzy and beat him with it, get out in front of cameras at every opportunity and stuff the issues back in their ear.

Dear those concerned about prisoner handover.  Not our issue.  Signed off by Paul Martin's government.  Problem with it, talk to Stephane....it was his party that signed the agreement.  I should add that the Afghan police and army are the rightful protectors of Afghanistan.  We are there to support them, not dictate to them.

Dear those concerned about Doan's racial slur: Get over it.  Ever played hockey?  You say lots of stupid things most of which you don't think about before they come out of your mouth.  Was what Shane said wrong?  Yes.  Did he apologize? Yes.  Has he conducted his life in a manner in which he has earned the respect of ALL his teammates regardless of race?  Absolutely.  Look at his track record.....I should add that let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  How many of the reporters here and viewers at home, perhaps after a couple of alcoholic beverages not said something obnoxious that you later regretted?  Seriously folks, let's put this in context.  It was a stupid comment, he apologized, next issue.

Dear Danny Williams - Next week we will be releasing a summary document and supporting website specifically for Newfoundlander's so they can see the source of revenues over the last 25 years and what portion of those revenues they received from Canadians in other provinces.  Let's not kid ourselves, equalization is about the goodwill of citizens across the country trying to look out for one another.  Your recent soapbox antics are an embarassment because when you didn't receive more than your fair share, you threw a temper tantrum like a teenage girl.  Is that really what you want Newfoundland to be seen as on the national stage Danny?

Bottom Line:  I'm sick of diplospeak and feigned niceties.  I don't think they help.  I think what we need is brutal honesty and someone who will get in other people's faces when they are out of line.

Sorry, I needed to rant today....


Matthew.   

 

[Armymedic]

Personally, I think Mr Harper is the strongest candidate for Prime Minister in all of federal politics. It is also my personal opinion that his cabinet and party is lacking in an adequate supporting cast.

 

[GAP]

Personnally, I think the drive for a majority is really clouding a lot of issues. I will be glad when they either have one, or someone else does, whatever, just stop the antics

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

I mostly agree with you on several issues.

where i disagree:
Kyoto: we signed the protocol, i don't know about you, but when i give my word. It's a sacred thing, and i expect the least from my country(not that the liberals did much either).

Prisoner hand over: You're absolutely right we're not there to dictate them, but if we have a prisoners "agreement" shouldn't there be a line somewhere talking about execution or torture.

I 100% agree on the honesty part, but about the out of the line, i disagree. Getting in someone's face doesn't fix anything besides getting the person thinking lowly of you. I often debate with my master corporal(not about work issue) but about life issues: women, kids,etc... and we learn from each others even thought we're 12 years difference of age. I think when you debate someone, you must have the balls to admit you were wrong...and that our absolute is very subjective.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I mostly agree with you on several issues.

where i disagree:
Kyoto: we signed the protocol, i don't know about you, but when i give my word. It's a sacred thing, and i expect the least from my country(not that the liberals did much either).

Prisoner hand over: You're absolutely right we're not there to dictate them, but if we have a prisoners "agreement" shouldn't there be a line somewhere talking about execution or torture.

I 100% agree on the honesty part, but about the out of the line, i disagree. Getting in someone's face doesn't fix anything besides getting the person thinking lowly of you. I often debate with my master corporal(not about work issue) but about life issues: women, kids,etc... and we learn from each others even thought we're 12 years difference of age. I think when you debate someone, you must have the balls to admit you were wrong...and that our absolute is very subjective.

RE: Kyoto - I believe it signed based on a false set of assumptions.  The best analogy I can think of getting married to a woman (or man if that's your thing) who appears perfect, but ends up being not who they pretended to be.  At that point, despite the fact you've given your word, you have every right to cancel the contract due to the fact that they misrepresented themselves.

RE: Getting in people's faces and confrontation in general - I think it's important that when an opponent knowingly lies, you call them on with enough emotion that it is certain to cast public focus on the issue....and with that focus on the fact they DID lie, you hope it casts enough light on it so that they don't repeat the behaviour.  Right now by not calling out those people publicly, you are giving them fully power to distort the truth.  See: Al Gore.



Matthew. 

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

Right you got the point...i got no scientific knowledge to argue.


And about liars, see Coderre vs Doan. Coderre is actually using this to win his court issue against Doan. I can't go technical, my english is limited... but Doan sued Coderre for 250k during the Turin olympic games, what we see in the media is the Coderre counter-attack. This is why it all went political. I can't developpe too much, my english is poor :[ if you can read french:
http://www.rds.ca/hockey/chroniques/226558.html


this guy explains it well.
http://www.rds.ca/hockey/talkbacks/226558/255961.html

If u type Denir Coderre Shane Doan suing, im pretty sure you can get the story.

This isnt about Shane Doan being unfit for Captain of team canada, but a personnal Vendetta, Coderre wants his head...or correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[a_majoor]

Good points:

Prime Minister Harper is an excellent tactician who has stick handled many issues through Parliament and the public despite being in a weak minority government position

He has stood up and been counted in areas that "really" matter; i.e. Afghanistan, Lebanon, Hamas etc.

He has articulated a fairly clear set of principles and positions, rather than 56 "priorities"

Bad points:

While he is a great tactician, it is harder to point to the "strategy". Some of this may be waving the red flag in order to score tactical points.

He has allowed the "green " agenda to dictate some of the parliamentry agenda (to be seen how much)

He is taking a drubbing in the left wing MSM because he hasn't spoken up enough (and the business of bypassing the MSM for local media has been to subtle to have had a counter influence.

Spends like a Liberal!!!!! >

 

[MikeM]

+1 GAP, would really like to see a majority, either way so things can get done and all this Minoritiy government crap done with.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Why would he want to get involved with the Coderre/ Doan thing? He showed his mettle by staying quiet and letting all the other idiots prove what they were....partisan idiots. No leadership involvment needed. It was a non government issue, which he recognised, and stayed clear. Notch another vote for clear thinking,...........and strong, even handed, honest government.

 

[GUNS]

Danny Williams and Steve:

Putting aside the 11.5 billion dollars that would have went to NL if Steve kept his promise.

Danny William's tantrums(as you refer to them) have accomplished what - 100+ million dollar military base for St. John's, Coast Guard ships moved to NL, Funding for Trans-Labrador highway approved, and many more that I can not recall.

If Steve's broken promises were votes, he would have a majority in the next election.

Having family members that served in Gagetown and have medical conditions that are related to Agent Orange use. I will never forget his promise to former servicemen and there family's to look after these people. $3000.00+ monthly medical bills is not what former soldiers should have to deal with.

You judge a person by his word

 

[George Wallace]

All I can say GUNS, is he has kept a heck of a lot more of his campaign promises, than any other Political Party that has won has in a long time.  I am sure that it is to be expected that he can't keep all his promises at the start of his tenure, and will be expected to do so over a reasonable period of time, or reevaluate his position on them.  There is always the Liberal way of doing things.......forget about all campaign promises totally until it is Election Time once again and then pull them out and dust them off.  I must say, the PCC and Harper have years of waste, neglect and corruption to clean up from the previous Parties who governed the country, so it will take time.........and a fair amount of bookkeeping on the part of the Treasury Board to please Canadians.

 

[observor 69]

Love this conversation,this is the level of argument that draws me back to this site.

My observation of the "New Harper government"...  It's getting old.  ;D

I think he has hit a glass ceiling. Constant shouting and ranting from Baird and his ilk in parliament  that every issue is the old Liberal governments fault is wearing thin. If challenged offer a positive alternative. If Kyoto is undoable (?) offer a "Real"  alternative that parliament can accept, if the  prison agreement is wrong don't offer dozens of alternate explanations just fix it.
Basically the Harper's Conservatives are too defensive and seem to have run out of steam.  As mentioned his micromanaging of the government reflects the lack of talent in his caucus
Instead of strategies on how to get a majority, work as an elected government on the serious issues facing this country.

Ya I know this is just my ramblings but I got a few good points in there. 

 

[GAP]

They definitely need to redefine their approach...the present one is old style, and is not working. Go back to what was working...good decisive government.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
My observation of the "New Harper government"...  It's getting old ...

Bingo!

I think National Post columnist John Ivison has it about right in this item which is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=0e454201-b7b1-4dc7-8c94-d9a757fe6c49

Tories 'running on vapour'

John Ivison, National Post
Published: Friday, May 11, 2007

OTTAWA - Even the backdrop of 80 fresh-faced Conservative interns was not enough to add zest to the latest democratic reform initiative announced by the government this week.

The announcement that the Tories will introduce legislation to open the polls on the two Sundays before an election in an attempt to boost voter turnout brought forth a collective shrug from bemused tourists watching the proceedings on the steps of Parliament Hill, and allegations of intern abuse from amused opposition MPs. It had all the hallmarks of a government light on ideas to fill the parliamentary order paper.

The Conservatives have worked their way through their election platform and have, quite literally, arrived at the back page.

"We're running on vapour," said one MP.

Even within the party, there is a feeling the government has lost its vital spark.

Stephen Harper, so sure-footed when events correspond to his game plan, has looked offbalance when forced to make policy on the hoof.

In a broader sense, the government's hard-won reputation for competence has been tarnished by the controversy over Canada's handling of Afghan detainees. The Prime Minister's Office, almost papal in its influence and infallibility in the early days, has looked overwhelmed by events, leading to accusations it is failing to provide timely direction -- or worse, direction that points 180 degrees from where the voters are.

Critics point out that after Team Canada captain Shane Doan was accused of racism by opposition politicians, the PMO reined in Tory MPs who wanted to tell Parliament to butt out -- a move that would have been wildly popular with the party's base.

For a party that has exhibited the discipline of Trappist monks in recent times, this is hard to dismiss as standard backbench sniping.

Conservatives are wondering openly how the leadership intends to reshape the political landscape around a new conservative orthodoxy. They want to know how their party is going to respond to the challenges of globalization and global warming over the next decade. Mainly, they want to know how the party is going to win again.

Answers have been in short supply. The policy platform was, by definition, an election document. The same might be said of the last budget, even if it did tilt toward a new, slimmed-down way of practising federalism that concentrated on respective jurisdictions.

But this has been a party so consumed with governing, with all the inevitable incendiary issues of a minority Parliament, that it has had scant time to renew itself intellectually.

This is understandable. The Conservatives set out to differentiate themselves from their predecessors by exceeding expectations. Even their harshest critics could not accuse them of having fallen down on delivering on most of what they said they would do.

The achievements have not been sweeping theoretical concepts but, rather, simple ideas aimed at specific groups. The "voter-based" approach has been markedly successful. Even Liberal MPs will tell you that in the suburbs, the child-care allowance and GST cut play better than concerns over the environment or aboriginal welfare.

The problem is that the party has earned its reputation for efficiency by drawing heavily on its reservoir of ideas. There may have been some policies kept in reserve in case of a spring election but the wellspring is said to have run pretty dry. Some deep thinking is now required.

The good news for Mr. Harper is that some events have worked in his favour. The likely move by Gilles Duceppe to lead the Parti Quebecois will remove any lingering prospect that the separatists will contrive to force an election in Ottawa this year.

The same could be said of the Liberals, currently being outfundraised 2:1 by the NDP.

Many people, including me, think the Conservatives missed an opportunity by not forcing an election this spring while Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader, did a passable impression of Forrest Gump in the House of Commons. But having resolved not to go -- and having recently passed fixed election date legislation -- Mr. Harper now finds he is in the novel situation where there is no imminent threat of going to the polls.

It offers him the prospect of a relatively tranquil summer. He must hope that his time out of the limelight is as fruitful as the summer of 2004, just after his narrow defeat by Paul Martin. He entered the summer months saying he was considering his future, leading many to conclude he was a spent force. Yet he emerged in the fall re-energized and determined not to give the Liberals the moral or political authority to govern as if they had a majority. The strategy limited the effectiveness of the Martin government and paved the way for the Conservative electoral success in 2006.

While the polls suggest Canadians are not ready to hand him a majority, they also indicate there is no deep well of discontent with his leadership. Perhaps best of all for him, there is no sign that Canadians are ready for the return of the Liberals.


© National Post 2007

I have fretted, here in Army.ca, about my concern that this government is all about tactics.  Harper is, clearly, a skilled, thoughtful political tactician – not perfect (or we would, I think, be facing a general election right now).  He got the policy convention to approve an attractive election platform; he campaigned (well) on it; he won; he implemented the platform ... then he dithered.

He has a cabinet planning and priorities committee (Jim Prentice is (still?) chair).  When is the policy planning committee?  Given the distress (indifferent leadership and poverty) of the Liberals and the  disarray of the BQ/PQ and the difficulties of the NDP (which fears being overtaken by the Greens) the Conservatives might just govern until the fall of 2009.  Doing what?  What do they believe Canada and Canadians should do – at home and abroad?  How shall we improve our prosperity?  How shall we share the wealth?  (Presuming we should share it at all.)  How shall we ensure liberty and justice for all – at least for all Canadians?  How shall we, finally, in the 21st century, shake off the shackles of 19th century political theories – the ones which say the people cannot be trusted to govern themselves?  Etc, etc, etc.

As to the military: I remain convinced that Harper sees it as a political tool and will use it as a political tool.  I believe he does want to restore Canada's reputation and position as a leader amongst the middle powers (à la the last real, Canadian foreign policy we ever had, courtesy Louis St. Laurent – which was, coincidentally, the first real, Canadian foreign policy we ever had – since I do not regard O.D. Skelton's Anglophobia as a policy, per se).  To do that I believe he understand he needs effective military forces to give him options and to give weight to our words.  Beyond that I suspect he sees the military as a painful and expensive necessity – nothing more.


 
Edit: typo- "... I remain convinced that ..."

 

[GAP]

The Liberal dominated Senate is killing him. They have dithered and played with amendments, delayed legislation, etc., to the point his minority government is being hurt. This is by Liberal design, and it's working.

There is not much Harper can do with the senate, even when he gets a majority. He has to outwait the mandates to stack the senate like Mulroney did, to get his legislation passed or make changes to the term limits that, if he get reelected, will sometime into his next mandate give him a senate majority.

 

[Reccesoldier]

So let me get this right...

Because Harper campaigned on, worked toward and has now managed to accomplish the vast majority of what he set out to do, then he is some sort of a lame duck?

Wow, it's true... Canadians are never happy.

The current session will be going on summer break on the 8th of June when they return there will be another speech from the Throne and a new set of priorities.  Perhaps there will be more this time because the Conservatives now have a better idea of how much they will be able to accomplish.

Now...

The "Canada's New Government" thing is lame, it was lame the first time it was said (though possibly necessary) it is lame now.

The principals of War as applied to the Harper Government

1.  Selecting and maintaining the aim: Harper has done a fine job, his plan was simple, easily understood and he ensured everyone (citizens and politicians alike) knew what he planned to do.

2.  Maintenance of Morale: He stumbled with public opinion, he didn't get the message out well and has largely succeeded in spite of this. His caucus is not well trained, nor (if one believes the reason for Harper's totalitarian hold on it) are they all that disciplined.

3.  Offensive action: This government has been slow to react to "the enemy" in some cases and other responses have been so frenetic as to have various ministers contradict, trip over others answers and infringe on other ministers AOR's.  The governments use of offensive action in the defence has been lacklustre as well... The line "Oh yeah, well the Old Liberal government did X, Y, Z..." was also lame the first time it was used.  The government did use offensive action brilliantly during the election.  They won and kept the initiative from start to finish.

4.  Security: Rather topical at the moment but I believe that they have done a passing job.  Both large breaches (The Conservative party documents and the Anarchist Staffer) are both in the hands of the RCMP and both (possibly) involve theft, not incompetence.  There was no leak of the income trust issue.

5.  Surprise: This was used to good effect during the election but not really since.

6.  Concentration of Force: The Harperites have managed to use this to some extent but only because their opponents have been so disorganized, leaderless and or squabbling among themselves.  The "enemy" did concentrate their forces on the Afghan prisoner issue and it shows just how much damage they can do and will do if the Conservatives don't themselves begin to Concentrate their efforts and take coherent offensive action.

7.  Economy of Effort:  The five priority plan has carried this for Harper, without the "everything is my priority" approach he has arguably accomplished more in a year and a bit with a minority than either Cretien, Martin could or would have with a majority.  Harper's control of his caucus and the message minimized the risks of diverting effort to fight brush fires on Abortion and the like from the usual suspects within it (Sheryl Gallant et al)

8.  Flexibility: Although a mess, and some would say a sell out, the environmental file and Kyoto has shown that Harper can adapt. His transition from one plan to another needs work though.

9.  Cooperation: Again the panicked and differing messages coming out about the Afghan Detainee story show a serious lack of cooperation.

10.  Administration: For the most part this was looked after fairly well, the five priorities were supported and given all the available resources and the marching orders on them were straight forward.

 

[safeboy43]

Flexibility: Although a mess, and some would say a sell out, the environmental file and Kyoto has shown that Harper can adapt. His transition from one plan to another needs work though.

In my opinion, this seems to be Harper's biggest downfall. When he can't adapt to plans quickly, the public becomes more and more convinced that he has some sort of "hidden agenda." Of course, the opposing parties help to amplify this problem (That is their job after all, isn't it?).

My 2 cents,

Cheers

 

[Flip]

Liberal politics has more to do with appearance than substance.

So, Harper has one disadvantage when it comes to appearance.
The opposition on the left simply has more mouths making noise
and the conservatives are left out-yapped.
It's clear the conservatives have a communication problem.

I don't think Harper made a mistake, not calling an election.
He didn't have the numbers and he appears to have acted on
principle.

I still think Harper is the most principled PM we've had in a very long time.
In the fall we'll see the momentum come back.
Hopefully we'll see conservatives express themselves more clearly, and more aggresively

The anarchist's leak taught us something - The sense of entitlement and
self righteousness demonsrated by this country's "lefties" knows no limit.
It's going to take years to clean house.

 

 

[GUNS]

Mr. Harper's handling of Canada is nothing more than a BIG CONservative plan to stay elected long enough to draw a fat pension.

 

[vonGarvin]

Mr. Harper's handling of Canada is nothing more than a BIG CONservative plan to stay elected long enough to draw a fat pension.

OK....now that you've been outed as a leftist critic of all things conservative....would you care to elaborate?

I mean, if pension were all that he were after, why worry about being conservative or liberal?  Heck, he could have jumped on that big old Red Machine when JC was PM and rode the gravy train all the way to the bank.  I mean, what about Stephane Dion?  I mean, I don't like that guy's policies, but I highly doubt that Stephane Dion's motivation is to "stay elected long enough to draw a fat pension."