I'm going to try an new tactic and be blunt, I don't like Harper. Why, well he has an unually large head and ego and since he's been elected as PM he's purdy much ignored what Canadians think or want except Quebec. Most of his policies won't come into effect for years, the increase in Military spending where are the results? I heard lots of promises for this that and the other thing but where's the product???? This article is bang on in my opinion. I've been told by many give him a chance, well I did and I don't like what I see.
P.S. The smilies were insert by moi to express how I feel.
Harper's self-assurance knows no bounds
LAWRENCE MARTIN
From Saturday's Globe and Mail:canada:
Great leaders, exceptional leaders, put the interests of the country first, their own political interests second. They raise the level of the playing field a few notches above the rugby pitch. They are inclined to that old-fashioned word, statesmanship. That's why they are almost an extinct breed.
Liberal governments didn't offer many such leaders. On naked political opportunism, they often wrote the script. With the ascendancy of the Conservatives of Stephen Harper, there was some hope — though hardly palpable — that there would be a change.
So where do these principled Conservatives stand so far? Are they an inspired group who care as much for the country's wellbeing as their own hides? Or do they more readily fit the categorization of a quick-fix, vote-pandering machine?
The big issues provide some clues.
Québécois as a nation: This was a master Harper stroke that could very well reverse the party's free fall in la belle province. But it is a move fraught with danger for the long term. Though there are no plans to change the Constitution, the nation label is an enduring gift that nationalists can exploit to demand more rights.
ukeright:
GST cuts: As a political weapon, a splendid vote-getter. As for the long-term interests of the country, most every economist turns thumbs down. The GST, created under Brain Mulroney, was the government's cash cow. It fit the global consensus toward consumption taxes as a much preferred alternative to income levies. Turning back the GST is turning back the clock.ukeright:
Softwood lumber accord: Again, top marks for short-term optics. It showed the Conservatives getting a deal where the Liberals could not. It showed them getting along better with the United States and it avoided a long-term legal wrangle. But it cost a billion dollars, it committed the industry to restricting exports and, worse, it undermined a second major accomplishment of the Mulroney government — the free-trade agreement. The message for the future is that it doesn't pay to heed the NAFTA.
Environmental measures: If the Harper government undercut the Mulroney record on free trade and the GST, it's done it again on the environment. Putting off any strong immediate action to deal with climate change is great for industry and the oil patch and Mr. Harper's Alberta base. But for Canada's long-term interests, the lack of action is a setback. It will create dire pressures down the line.ukeright: ukeright: ukeright:
Afghanistan commitment: Unlike the previous government, this one wanted to be decisive. Rushing into a major extension of the war mission without national discussion or much parliamentary debate accomplished that. But it was like turning into a blind alley. There was no telling, without assurances from other Allies, what it would lead to.:evil3:
Day care: Throwing money at mothers was another example of a nice short-term political fix. In the long term, an institutionalized system of guaranteed day dare, if properly constituted, might be a better option.
The Harper actions in respect to China and the Middle East, though perhaps more motivated by ideology than political considerations, were other examples of quick decision-making with little regard for long-term consequences.
Minority governments, in order to survive, have to make trade-offs. Allowances should be made for that and there have been some exceptions to the aforementioned list.
But whereas the Mulroney Tories could be said to have been farsighted on some major files, it is hard to find in the Harper mix the same kind of thinking. For this government, it's all politics all the time and damn the land mines that might be stumbled on in the years down the line.
Mr. Harper displays an Olympian self-assurance. He is the master strategist and smugly moves the political pieces in a bid to trump one and all. It is done in peremptory style; the old Reform urges that brought him to Ottawa — democratization and transparency in the system — seem long forgotten. The impression is that he may get around to considering long-term impacts, but only after the protracted political ruminations are complete. In the Commons, his government shows no inclination to ennobling discourse, but only, in the tradition of the Grits, scoring cheap points.ukeright:
Higher standards might prevail if the media focus was less on the politics of every government action and more on how the decisions affect the wellbeing of the country. It used to be that when politically driven considerations superseded the national interest they were exposed and scorned, not saluted.
The present-day culture feeds the impression that good politics is good governance. Often, the opposite is true. Often, what results is what we may be seeing today — short-term gain for long-term pain. lmartin@globeandmail.com
P.S. The smilies were insert by moi to express how I feel.
Harper's self-assurance knows no bounds
LAWRENCE MARTIN
From Saturday's Globe and Mail:canada:
Great leaders, exceptional leaders, put the interests of the country first, their own political interests second. They raise the level of the playing field a few notches above the rugby pitch. They are inclined to that old-fashioned word, statesmanship. That's why they are almost an extinct breed.
Liberal governments didn't offer many such leaders. On naked political opportunism, they often wrote the script. With the ascendancy of the Conservatives of Stephen Harper, there was some hope — though hardly palpable — that there would be a change.
So where do these principled Conservatives stand so far? Are they an inspired group who care as much for the country's wellbeing as their own hides? Or do they more readily fit the categorization of a quick-fix, vote-pandering machine?
The big issues provide some clues.
Québécois as a nation: This was a master Harper stroke that could very well reverse the party's free fall in la belle province. But it is a move fraught with danger for the long term. Though there are no plans to change the Constitution, the nation label is an enduring gift that nationalists can exploit to demand more rights.
ukeright: GST cuts: As a political weapon, a splendid vote-getter. As for the long-term interests of the country, most every economist turns thumbs down. The GST, created under Brain Mulroney, was the government's cash cow. It fit the global consensus toward consumption taxes as a much preferred alternative to income levies. Turning back the GST is turning back the clock.
ukeright: Softwood lumber accord: Again, top marks for short-term optics. It showed the Conservatives getting a deal where the Liberals could not. It showed them getting along better with the United States and it avoided a long-term legal wrangle. But it cost a billion dollars, it committed the industry to restricting exports and, worse, it undermined a second major accomplishment of the Mulroney government — the free-trade agreement. The message for the future is that it doesn't pay to heed the NAFTA.
Environmental measures: If the Harper government undercut the Mulroney record on free trade and the GST, it's done it again on the environment. Putting off any strong immediate action to deal with climate change is great for industry and the oil patch and Mr. Harper's Alberta base. But for Canada's long-term interests, the lack of action is a setback. It will create dire pressures down the line.
ukeright: ukeright: ukeright: Afghanistan commitment: Unlike the previous government, this one wanted to be decisive. Rushing into a major extension of the war mission without national discussion or much parliamentary debate accomplished that. But it was like turning into a blind alley. There was no telling, without assurances from other Allies, what it would lead to.:evil3:
Day care: Throwing money at mothers was another example of a nice short-term political fix. In the long term, an institutionalized system of guaranteed day dare, if properly constituted, might be a better option.
The Harper actions in respect to China and the Middle East, though perhaps more motivated by ideology than political considerations, were other examples of quick decision-making with little regard for long-term consequences.
Minority governments, in order to survive, have to make trade-offs. Allowances should be made for that and there have been some exceptions to the aforementioned list.
But whereas the Mulroney Tories could be said to have been farsighted on some major files, it is hard to find in the Harper mix the same kind of thinking. For this government, it's all politics all the time and damn the land mines that might be stumbled on in the years down the line.
Mr. Harper displays an Olympian self-assurance. He is the master strategist and smugly moves the political pieces in a bid to trump one and all. It is done in peremptory style; the old Reform urges that brought him to Ottawa — democratization and transparency in the system — seem long forgotten. The impression is that he may get around to considering long-term impacts, but only after the protracted political ruminations are complete. In the Commons, his government shows no inclination to ennobling discourse, but only, in the tradition of the Grits, scoring cheap points.
ukeright: Higher standards might prevail if the media focus was less on the politics of every government action and more on how the decisions affect the wellbeing of the country. It used to be that when politically driven considerations superseded the national interest they were exposed and scorned, not saluted.
The present-day culture feeds the impression that good politics is good governance. Often, the opposite is true. Often, what results is what we may be seeing today — short-term gain for long-term pain. lmartin@globeandmail.com
