This article is surely a cut above most of Travers' work. Perhaps this is because most of it agrees with my own opinions! Anyway Travers makes a lot of good points. Imagine what Harper would do if he had a majority that imposed no restraints upon him. However, as Travers himself points out the opposition Liberals seem hardly a credible alternative. There are other alternatives though, that is voting for the NDP, the Greens, and other parties. It is unlikely that this will result in Tweedle Dee(Conservatives) and Tweedle Dum (LIberals) being defeated by a third party but it will put some restraints upon what the winning party can do wrong by ensuring that there is not another majority government. Unless Ignatieff begins to advance some policies that capture the imagination of Canadians and shows more skill in countering the Conservative attacks against him while attacking them successfully there seems not much hope for the Liberal party. Right now he seems to have gone back into sleep mode. Perhaps he is saving energy. This is from the Star.
Travers: Harper's dark democracy creates dangerous legacy
January 02, 2010
James Travers
OTTAWA
No one should be more concerned about this Prime Minister's controlling methods than Conservatives. Power so expediently abused in high office becomes a cruel constraint when an election is inevitably lost.
Stephen Harper understood that in opposition. As a Reformer he preached the gospel of parliamentary primacy. As a Conservative leader using memories of ethical failures from the Chrétien era to defeat Paul Martin, Harper promised, hand over heart, to restore accountability.
That, of course, was then. Now the Prime Minister is singularly dominating national affairs. As a new year begins, there will be no one here to ask annoying questions about war and spending or distract attention from the modern Roman circus of Olympic Games.
No watchdogs will howl at how Canadians are being denied the right to know what the ruling party is doing in their name and with their money; what generals and ministers aren't saying about Afghanistan prisoner torture or how an unreformed RCMP polices much of the country without civilian oversight.
If there is a zone, a sweet spot, in federal politics, Harper is at its epicentre. Cabinet is a rubber stamp, party principles are sacrificed to pragmatism without much protest, and there's no credible alternative to threaten Harper's hegemony or test a Conservative agenda.
Other prime ministers have explored the open space created by Parliament's shrinkage. Pierre Trudeau, who began the concentration of power among whispering loyalists, snapped "just watch me" when asked how far he would go to control the 1970 October Crisis. Brian Mulroney Tories created the wink-and-nudge contracting system that Liberals elevated into the Quebec sponsorship scheme. Jean Chrétien became known as a more or less friendly dictator during three consecutive majorities.
Harper is still pursuing a first majority. Meanwhile he's constructing a bold new edifice on his predecessor's suspect foundations.
Systematically, and without explanation, the Prime Minister is testing every limit on his power. Along with successfully shuttering Parliament for the second time, he's neutering committees charged with the primary democratic responsibilities of safeguarding the treasury and forcing the government to explain its actions. He's challenging independent rulings against how Conservatives funded their 2006 election and how this government treats Canadians in trouble abroad.
Politics is an uncompromising blood sport played to win within loose rules. By learning Liberal dirty tricks, adapting to changing circumstances and reinterpreting every regulation in his favour, Harper is proving to be a shrewd and accomplished contestant.
Far less clear is what he accepts as legitimate constraint, the line in the democratic sand not to be crossed.
Last year ministers threatened to go over the head of the de facto head of state if Governor General Michaëlle Jean allowed a coalition of "Liberals, socialists and separatist" to use their Commons majority to topple his minority. This winter Harper is essentially making the argument that Parliament is getting in the way of his government governing.
Come spring or fall, there will likely be another election, one that might well interfere with what the Prime Minister has in mind and could, if experience is a prognosticator, lead to yet another response outside the boundaries of shared Canadian experience.
Whatever happens in the coming months, one reality is inescapable. In taking politics to a different, hyper-controlling and partisan level, the Prime Minister is creating a dangerous legacy his successors will gratefully accept before turning it to their benefit.
Even if Conservatives are more comfortable than other Canadians with Harper's dark democracy, they along with the rest of us should be very afraid of what will happen when, as it will, the political worm turns.
James Travers' column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
Showing posts with label Stephen Harper's strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen Harper's strategy. Show all posts
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The Commonwealth for Bush Club
As this article notes Howard and Harper were soul mates. Lippert was smart enough to know that Harper would find Howard's speech perfectly fitting. Both fit the same mould of supporting the Bush PNAC agenda and serving as junior partners to the US. Both also had the same right wing agenda and used the clever campaign tactics noted by Flanagan.
Harper, Howard had close ties TheStar.com - Federal Election - Harper, Howard had close ties
October 01, 2008 Richard BrennanOttawa Bureau
OTTAWA–The Harper government was only months olds when Australian Prime Minister John Howard was the first foreign leader invited to address Parliament in 2006.
The invitation reflected the close ties between Howard's government and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's. Howard headed Australia's Liberal party, which despite its name, is "small-c" conservative.
As Harper was putting together a campaign strategy, his advisers drew strength from Howard's four straight election wins, former Harper campaign manager and adviser Tom Flanagan wrote in his 2007 book, Harper's Team.
"Howard has appealed to what he dubbed the `battlers,' families struggling to raise their children on modest incomes – working hard, paying their taxes, playing by the rules, to paraphrase rhetoric that we would use in the coming (2006) election," Flanagan wrote.
Patrick Muttart, now Harper's deputy chief of staff, and Flanagan arranged meetings between Harper and Howard, who shared favourable views of the Iraq war, and opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. "In effect, Patrick set out to recast our appeal in terms familiar to John Howard's battlers," wrote Flanagan.
Australia's national newspaper, The Australian, in May 2006 described Harper's campaign "as being straight from Howard's Australian election handbook in almost every way." Howard was one of the closest allies of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration, with Australia joining the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
When Harper visited Australia in 2007 for an Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) summit, he became the first Canadian prime minister to address the country's parliament, where he lauded Australia's contribution to the war on terrorism.
In Australia's election last November, Labour Leader Kevin Rudd swept to power. Howard lost his own seat in parliament.
Harper, Howard had close ties TheStar.com - Federal Election - Harper, Howard had close ties
October 01, 2008 Richard BrennanOttawa Bureau
OTTAWA–The Harper government was only months olds when Australian Prime Minister John Howard was the first foreign leader invited to address Parliament in 2006.
The invitation reflected the close ties between Howard's government and Prime Minister Stephen Harper's. Howard headed Australia's Liberal party, which despite its name, is "small-c" conservative.
As Harper was putting together a campaign strategy, his advisers drew strength from Howard's four straight election wins, former Harper campaign manager and adviser Tom Flanagan wrote in his 2007 book, Harper's Team.
"Howard has appealed to what he dubbed the `battlers,' families struggling to raise their children on modest incomes – working hard, paying their taxes, playing by the rules, to paraphrase rhetoric that we would use in the coming (2006) election," Flanagan wrote.
Patrick Muttart, now Harper's deputy chief of staff, and Flanagan arranged meetings between Harper and Howard, who shared favourable views of the Iraq war, and opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. "In effect, Patrick set out to recast our appeal in terms familiar to John Howard's battlers," wrote Flanagan.
Australia's national newspaper, The Australian, in May 2006 described Harper's campaign "as being straight from Howard's Australian election handbook in almost every way." Howard was one of the closest allies of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration, with Australia joining the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
When Harper visited Australia in 2007 for an Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) summit, he became the first Canadian prime minister to address the country's parliament, where he lauded Australia's contribution to the war on terrorism.
In Australia's election last November, Labour Leader Kevin Rudd swept to power. Howard lost his own seat in parliament.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
What's Harper really up to?
This is from the Calgary Herald. This article sums things up quite well. Harper will be quite satisfied if he can push through his legislation and Dion capitulates. Dion will look to be the weak leader that he has been so far and also someone lacking in principle. On the other hand, if he is defeated the Conservatives are well prepared for an election. The worst that is likely to happen is that he will form another minority government.
What's Harper really up to?
An election if necessary, but not necessarily an election
Calgary HeraldPublished: Saturday, February 09, 2008
Is Prime Minister Stephen Harper trying to provoke an election? Or is he, by staking out three confidence issues in the Commons, just trying to get some governing done?
The issues are the budget, due in March, and two government motions introduced this week. One calls on the House of Commons to order the Liberal-dominated Senate to pass its crime bill.
The other, reflecting the main points of the Manley report on Canada's role in Afghanistan, recommends extending the mission to the end of 2011, "but with increasing emphasis on training the Afghan national security forces expeditiously to take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole," all conditional on an increased NATO commitment.
These are all consequential matters, not "juvenile tricks," as Liberal Leader Stephane Dion vainly asserts.
Still, Harper's apparent intentions could be interpreted as engineering his own defeat. Certainly, the possibility is there and those who see him manoeuvring Dion to where he has no choice but to bring the Tory government down, point to the Liberals' attractive vulnerability -- shortage of money, internal division and Dion's own uncertain leadership.
For a well-disciplined, well-funded Conservative party, the temptation to grab a majority while the Liberals are weak, and before the economy wavers -- sitting governments always get the blame -- must be hard to bear. However, that's high-stakes poker.
The public isn't clamouring to vote, and on Groundhog Day the little beast saw the shadow of last year's polls: There was nothing about them then to coax a minority government into electoral adventures, and that hasn't changed. So, there's no guarantee that after a campaign nobody wanted, the relative position of the parties wouldn't be much as it is now. That would be a lot of goodwill spent for nothing. That doesn't sound like a Harper gamble.
Several times in the past six weeks Harper has said he prefers governing until the October 2009 fixed election date he promised shortly after taking office. We are inclined to take him at his word.
After slightly more than two years on the job, and with a little less than 21 months to go, it's rational. Also, he's clearly having fun, at least as the cerebral economist understands it. Above all, it's consistent with what we know of the man.
To become prime minister, he twice sought a party leadership, united Canada's conservatives and fought two general elections. It's illogical to suppose he would refrain from using the levers he has to make things happen, and settle instead for the rewards of non-confrontation: that is, a new record for the minority that served longest, and did least.
It's much easier to see Harper's strong-arming of the opposition as his determination to use his tactical advantages to have his way. That, too, is a high-stakes game that could lead to an election anyway. But the intent behind it is different.
Harper may well ask himself if he's not going to govern, what is he doing there?
It's certainly the question we would ask him..
© The Calgary Herald 2008
What's Harper really up to?
An election if necessary, but not necessarily an election
Calgary HeraldPublished: Saturday, February 09, 2008
Is Prime Minister Stephen Harper trying to provoke an election? Or is he, by staking out three confidence issues in the Commons, just trying to get some governing done?
The issues are the budget, due in March, and two government motions introduced this week. One calls on the House of Commons to order the Liberal-dominated Senate to pass its crime bill.
The other, reflecting the main points of the Manley report on Canada's role in Afghanistan, recommends extending the mission to the end of 2011, "but with increasing emphasis on training the Afghan national security forces expeditiously to take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole," all conditional on an increased NATO commitment.
These are all consequential matters, not "juvenile tricks," as Liberal Leader Stephane Dion vainly asserts.
Still, Harper's apparent intentions could be interpreted as engineering his own defeat. Certainly, the possibility is there and those who see him manoeuvring Dion to where he has no choice but to bring the Tory government down, point to the Liberals' attractive vulnerability -- shortage of money, internal division and Dion's own uncertain leadership.
For a well-disciplined, well-funded Conservative party, the temptation to grab a majority while the Liberals are weak, and before the economy wavers -- sitting governments always get the blame -- must be hard to bear. However, that's high-stakes poker.
The public isn't clamouring to vote, and on Groundhog Day the little beast saw the shadow of last year's polls: There was nothing about them then to coax a minority government into electoral adventures, and that hasn't changed. So, there's no guarantee that after a campaign nobody wanted, the relative position of the parties wouldn't be much as it is now. That would be a lot of goodwill spent for nothing. That doesn't sound like a Harper gamble.
Several times in the past six weeks Harper has said he prefers governing until the October 2009 fixed election date he promised shortly after taking office. We are inclined to take him at his word.
After slightly more than two years on the job, and with a little less than 21 months to go, it's rational. Also, he's clearly having fun, at least as the cerebral economist understands it. Above all, it's consistent with what we know of the man.
To become prime minister, he twice sought a party leadership, united Canada's conservatives and fought two general elections. It's illogical to suppose he would refrain from using the levers he has to make things happen, and settle instead for the rewards of non-confrontation: that is, a new record for the minority that served longest, and did least.
It's much easier to see Harper's strong-arming of the opposition as his determination to use his tactical advantages to have his way. That, too, is a high-stakes game that could lead to an election anyway. But the intent behind it is different.
Harper may well ask himself if he's not going to govern, what is he doing there?
It's certainly the question we would ask him..
© The Calgary Herald 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)