Stephen Harper's Canada?

[the caracal kid]

Web-exclusive comment
Stephen Harper's Canada?
Just look at John Howard's Australia. Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Posted at 12:56 AM EST

Special to Globe and Mail Update

The resemblance between this federal election and the Australian one of 1996 is uncanny. In both cases, a centre-left government has been in office for 13 years - the Liberals in Canada and the Australian Labour Party (ALP) in Australia. And just as a tired ALP headed by Paul Keating faced a resurgent conservative force led by current Australian Prime Minister John Howard a decade ago, Paul Martin is facing a confident Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper today.

But more important for Canadians is the fact that Mr. Harper's party is employing the same campaign tactics that Mr. Howard first used in 1996 for his landslide win and that he has used to great effect in three successive elections.

As The Globe and Mail disclosed on Jan. 7, it's no accident that the Harper campaign feels like it has been ripped straight from the pages of the John Howard campaign manual. Mr. Howard's national campaign director, Brian Loughnane, is advising the Conservatives; last fall, Conservative Party strategists closely watched the tactics used by Mr. Howard to record his fourth election victory.

Mr. Howard's electoral success can be put down to his capacity to capture the support of working-class and lower-middle-class families who used to vote for the ALP; he did this by lining their pockets with tax cuts and middle-class welfare payments, such as cash bonuses for new mothers. And he appealed to their moral conservatism and desire to slow down the pace of social change.

Advertisements








In 1996, Mr. Howard's campaign slogan was "For all of us." Mr. Howard said the ALP was more interested in what he called "elite" issues such as aboriginal reconciliation, Australian republicanism and the arts.

Mr. Howard's phrase for those who have switched their support from the ALP to his Liberal Party is "mainstream Australians." These voters, who primarily live in the western suburbs of Sydney and southeast Queensland, don't like gay marriage. They fear social change; Muslim and Asian migrants moving into their neighbourhoods scares them. They believe aboriginal Australians get too much welfare. They like tough-on-crime policies. And they focus on their economic bottom line - they like tax cuts and low interest rates.

The beauty of capturing these voters' support is that, for a left-of-centre political force such as the ALP to win them back, it has to shift to the right - and that causes public brawling among its membership and makes the party seem a weak alternative to Mr. Howard's.

Mr. Harper's strategy appears to be a carbon copy of that adopted by the Liberal Party in Australia. Just as Mr. Howard uses the phrase "mainstream Australians," Mr. Harper talks about giving "mainstream Canadians" a tax cut and offering tough anti-crime policies.

And just as Mr. Howard accused Mr. Keating's ALP government of pandering to special interests, a key plank of Mr. Harper's campaign rhetoric is to accuse both the Liberals and the NDP of being out of touch with "ordinary" Canadian families. The NDP, Mr. Harper said, is "for high taxes, it's soft on crime, and it puts the demands of special interests ahead of the needs of ordinary working families."

Mr. Harper and Mr. Howard parallel each other in one other key respect. Mr. Howard is the most conservative prime minister in postwar Australia. He is determined to dismantle his country's egalitarian societal values and replace them with a society that is underpinned by concepts such as rewarding self-reliance, small government, tougher welfare policies, and moral conservatism.

What has made Mr. Howard so politically ruthless is his belief that his conservative predecessor, Malcolm Fraser (prime minister from 1975 to 1983), squandered an opportunity to do what Mr. Howard is now doing.

As Globe columnist John Ibbitson has noted, Mr. Harper was disappointed that the Mulroney government had not pursued a harder-edged libertarian agenda. If Mr. Harper wins this election, he will no doubt put that right.

If Canadians are asking themselves what a Harper government would do to their country, they just have to look at John Howard's Australia today.

Greg Barns, a lawyer based in Australia, is writing a book comparing Canada and Australia over the period 1968 to 2004.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060117.wcomment0117/BNStory/National/

 

[MMMike]

Australia in the past few years especially has had a 'robust' foreign policy which I admire. They are punching above their weight internationally. In contrast, Canada loves to talk high and mighty and pretend like we are some kind of moral superpower while lacking the guts to translate words into actions.

 

[Jay]

Australia is Canada's sister nation. We seem to have similiar issues too.

 

[KanBob]

Re: RE: Stephen Harper's Canada?

Australia in the past few years especially has had a 'robust' foreign policy which I admire. They are punching above their weight internationally. In contrast, Canada loves to talk high and mighty and pretend like we are some kind of moral superpower while lacking the guts to translate words into actions.

Not only is Australian foreign policy getting noticed around the world.

That muscle just doesn't show in foreign affairs. In the last Olympics, from a population base less than 2/3 that of Canada, they were fourth in the world in medals. 17 Gold, 16 Silver, 16 Bronze.

Canada was 21st. 3 Gold, 6 Silver and 3 Bronze.

Seems like we want all things Canadian to have about the same standing in the world as our health care services.

 

[nomore]

it's also interesting to note, that since John Howard's government took power, Australia's quality of life has increased, and surpassed Canada. Meanwhile Canada's quality of life has been declining.

The same is exactly true with the U.N HDI rating. Australia is now in 3rd place worldwide, Canada has dropped several spots to somewhere below that.

Australian's pay less for health care per capita, have better service, more doctors per capita, more MRI machines per capita, longer life expectancy
The list goes on...

So if this is what Canada will look like with Harper, I say great

 

[Calberty]

Harper's Canada will include criminal laws in which Svend Robinson the NDP Thief wouldn't be going 'boo hoo' after strealing a 50,000 in propery and not going to jail (and then being enthusiastically embraced by Jack Layton to run for the NDP again)

I'll find some links and post them.

 

[Calberty]

Maclean's Magazine:

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20051219_118179_118179

"Svend, send him packing". NDP's poster boy for what the NDP represents....thievery.

 

[I think not]

I get the distinct impression Calberty considers Svend a thief, and he's not too happy about Layton letting him run either.

 

[FiveParadox]

Jailtime for Robinson

In my opinion, I would have seen no purpose in having had imprisoned Mr. Svend Robinson for his crime; the ring was returned, and community service was performed. There was no outstanding damage to correct, and he was not a danger to society — in my opinion, incarceration would have been useless.

 

[nomore]

Re: Jailtime for Robinson

In my opinion, I would have seen no purpose in having had imprisoned Mr. Svend Robinson for his crime; the ring was returned, and community service was performed. There was no outstanding damage to correct, and he was not a danger to society — in my opinion, incarceration would have been useless.

In that case, I'm gonna go "borrow" a BMW from the car dealership. :?

I'm sorry fiveparadox, but your logic is horribly flawed

 

[Jersay]

No not really. The guy didn't commit a crime before hand. He returned the ring and apologized and received community service.

Now this would be on his record for life, wouldn't it, for a politician, who only did that once that is enough, having other people remember what you did.

 

[FiveParadox]

nomore, my opinion is that persons should be incarcerated only where they pose a danger to society; in my opinion, imprisonment should be more of a method of protection for society than punishment for the offender.

This issue was discussed at length on another thread; if you'd like to talk about it in another thread, then I would invite you to create it, and I would be more than happy to engage you in a friendly exchange of opinions. ^_^

 

[nomore]

Now this would be on his record for life, wouldn't it, for a politician, who only did that once that is enough, having other people remember what you did.

From the National Post, August 7, 2004.

"The judge handed him a conditional discharge, meaning Mr. Robinson will not have a criminal record or serve any jail time."

Fiveparadox, think of the concequences if everyone started stealing things and then "gave them back" when they get caught. It's called anarchy.

I have no need to start a thread about this, since it is blatently obvious that it was wrong. Plus, I didn't start this subject in this thread.

 

[FiveParadox]

Well, it's good to know that my opinion is blatently wrong.

So much for friendly debate.

:arrow: Returning to the Topic at Hand

It is an interesting question, as to whether or not Stephen Harper is going to have the influence that he would need in order to create "his" Canada. He would almost certainly require a majority, since the left-wing (and left-of-centre) Opposition to this prime ministership would likely defeat pieces of overtly conservative legislation (in regards to non-fiscal matters).

 

[Jersay]

Minority - no - he will not be able to create his Canada.

Small majority - no - some Progressives, or Red Tories left over might vote against him.

Large majority - Yes- And i am heading for Cuba.

 

[nomore]

Re: RE: Stephen Harper's Canada?

Well, it's good to know that my opinion is blatently wrong.

You took that the wrong way, it was ment to read, "Robinson's crime was blatently wrong."

Not your opinion, I'm sorry it came out that way.