Summer will be serious for PM - Nik's Sun Media Column July 16, 2007

Good afternoon Nick;

A very interesting article regarding the current state of Mr. Harper and his New Government. Although I agree totally with your analysis of both issues raised in your first column, I feel that Harper's worst ennemy has been himself. I find that since he has formed the government, he has demonstrated an sense of arrogance never before seen in federal politics. Although somewhat similar to Brian Mulroney in the late eighty, Harper acts like a bullie on all fronts and gets on blaming previous administrations for issues that are now his responsiblity. I did not vote for Harper during the last election but I was hoping that the unification of the right might bring a political alternative to voters. Instead we have seen a futher polarization of the Ref/Con partisans and a stagnant popularity for the conservative movement. Still concerned or obsessed with the liberals, Mr. Harper has been missing golden opportunities to capitalize from the weak standing of the liberals in the polls, thus suggesting that the latest has only one place to go but up in the not so distant future. With a team constantly under communication and initiative raps, Harper will bring the demise of a party that has been forged from two very different philosophical sets of principles and consensus process.
Good luck with this new assignment.

Brushfires indeed, the misunderstanding of Afghanistan is directly related to the absolute lack of media coverage on the other side of the war, even the CBC is starting to get this point. They did a wonderful piece this morning on girls playing soccer and how they had to start the league in secrecy with just a few players and have now grown to a 15 team league that play out in the open. My guess is the CBC are starting to hear from more than just the cut and run club are feeling the need to balance their coverage more appropriately.

As for the hyping of the premiers vs the Prime Minister as you have now done as well, the reality is its only 3 premiers with dollar signs in thier eyes representing approx 5% of the population.
It could be much worse, the premiers could be from Ont, Que, Ab ,BC, now that would be a problem. I understand premiers have to stick together and all, but I'de really like to see a premier with some brass ones get up bash Williams for what the greedy little Canadian flag slamming person he is. Maginty from Ontario came close in an interview but stopped short.

Question remains, why are the media and now you Nick perpetuating the negatives of the stories as opposed to polling/initiating conversation on how Canadians in the other provinces feel about these provinces trying to pick their pockets or why coverage of the good things in Afghanistan are ingnored by the National media?

Harper can't manage Afghanistan. He can only react to the circumstances on the ground. The IED's, the suicide bombings, and the body count will dictate the government's actions. Federal-provincial relations aren't going to improve any time soon either because they are managed by a PM who doesn't have the capacity nor the willingness to engage in the co-operative federalism that was practiced by previous governments. Harper likes to divide and conquer. Can you ever imagine him hosting am open televised two day Conference of First Ministers ? Me either, but he should. We don't need a Presidential style prime minister. We need someone who knows politics is the art of the possible and who can express a coherent vision of where the possibilities can take us.

Are we really going to see a "softer gentler" Stephen this summer r just more political positioning and re-framing of the leader? Do you believe the Harper Con policy staffers will actually come up with some new ideas in the PMO-centric culture of the Harper government? Would that not be a career limiting activity by definition? There is no way for them to win especially not by bring truth to this power.

We have the strong paternalistic leader in Stephen Harper and he has moulded himself in the image of the stern head of the household disciplinarian. Kind of like the 1950's view of Dad as the guy you "just had to wait until he came home" and children lived in fear in case he took his belt to them, not as punishment but to "teach the kids right from wrong." Harper has proven he is the kind leader who values discipline above all else and who hands out the punishment as he sees is necesary. He is not the team builder type and definitely not the statesman kind of guy.

I hope he changes because Canada is so starved of enlightened effective leaders. We don't need kinder gentler. We need wise and insightful with a clarity of purpose together with proven strength of character.

Interesting column.

I would have added a point about Harper's 24/7 campaign-level partisan attitude to just about anything. It often comes with a mean edge that I find most unattractive. Coupled with the incessant "new government" harangue and his need to blame almost everything on the Liberals, I find myself annoyed just about every time I hear him.

Now, it is certainly true that none of the other leaders is covered in glory from recent performances, but it is after all the Prime Minister who has the most to do with setting the tone of the political discourse.

It seems me that the Conservatives have had a tremendous opportunity to set themselves up to become a majority, and that they've wasted it. Given Harper's performance and attitudes so far, I'm not sure that they can turn it around.

The two brushfires will likely become major forest fires if Harper keeps on making small blunders. Many voters don't have a clue about Afghanistan or fiscal unbalance. Many don't even know that Canada has troops in the Middle east. But everyone can understand beer parlour insults... like Harper's "...sue me...", and that's where the political wars will be lost and won. Canadians don't really like bullies, and PM Harper often sounds like a bully. In a way, that's the other side of the Afghanistan coin. Many of us are secretly ashamed of what we're up to there. As long as we could believe that we were peace keepers and universally loved by the Afghanis everything was O.K.. Now that we know we're making war, not peace, and that most Afghanis want us and all the rest of the foreigners OUT of their country we're doing a bit of a double take.

There is also a third smoldering fire that I think is important to Mr. Harper's future. That is the trust factor. Of course, trust is tied in with the Atlantic Accord question, but it covers more ground than just that. Many Canadians simply don't trust him anymore. They feel that he double-crossed them on gun control, and on various social issues such as same sex marriage. I know the response to that one. His supporters will say that he couldn't have achieved what he promised because Parliament is stacked against him. Well, that's true, of course, but perhaps he could have tried. When he wanted to squash the Wheat Board he found it easy to hold a plebiscite on barley marketing. So what would have been so difficult about a plebiscite on gun control? The neat thing about a plebiscite is that it becomes easy to vote for what you really believe instead of being stuck with voting for a political Party, as most of us do in General Elections.

To me, the Conservative Party should be called the Harper Party as, I have said before, it is a one man show. Harper demonstrates arrogance when faced with a weak opposition that generally fails to present strong, viable alternativeS (note the plural) that "catch" the voter's support and imagination. Harper continuously blames all problems and short comings, ad nauseam, on the former administration, as does the BC conservative government, failing to demonstrate good fore thought and future planning FOR THE COUNTRY / province. It is not that Harper is all bad, far from it, but he is not a populist leader of public opinion but rather demands we FOLLOW his lead whether we agree or not. This happened to the Campbell grovernment in BC, much to their sorrow at the last election.

Harper formed a government mainly because of the vote AGAINST the former Liberal administration and Campbell formed the BC government mainly because the vote AGAINST the former NDP administration. Both Harper and Campbell failed to cultivate the VOTE FOR their administrations----a fatal flaw demonstrating poor hearing and a loss of electoral expectations which were high in both cases.

I have said right along on this blog that Afghanistan will be a major election issue but not too sure of the perennial federal / provincial relations until Harper told the premier / s to "go stick it" if they did not like what he was doing-----rather inflammatory and not diplomatic for any of us to hear.

With the opposition where they are or are not, I do believe Harper could recover BUT he will have to quickly learn the meaning of CONSENSUS and COMPROMISE----two signiticant Canadian words.

What the last year has made me wonder more about the quality of the advisers who are actually responsible for this government and its moves than about the leader himself. Aren't most political leaders .... any leader for that matter ....about as strong as the team of people he or she builds around him? Yet there has been an amateurish air around the PMO's strategies on perception management that I don't think can be laid at Harper's feet (that is, unless he's been ignoring the advice of his advisers).

Unlike many in here, I don't feel that this government has screwed things up so much as it has "mediocred" its way through the past year. Certainly not enough credit has been given to the fact that our government is a heavy boat that can a bit difficult to turn around after 13 years . We keep hearing the anecdotes of bureaucrats who think they know better than their elected leaders and, more importantly, mistake this confidence for justification to ignore their elected masters and the new political staff charged with implementing the "new government's" various differing approaches.

Say what you will about "New Government" being old and tired. Me thinks that for many in the civil service it is still very much real. I'm sure there are plenty of folks who feel like they are "hangin on" until the Liberals come back in power.

The political brushfires are an issue. Nik, I think you have framed this issue correctly. But most of all we are all looking for something fresh and innovative from this government.

Perhaps it is a bit unfair since we lived through 13 years of Liberal government without expecting much fresh or innovative coming from it most of the time. Nevertheless I join the crowd awaiting "the fresh." Whether it be the current slew of advisers or a new gang better suited to the task at hand, it can't come too soon.

I am not nearly as pessimistic as Nik appears to be in his column. This government is going to run out its mandate. Afghanistan will become a non issue come the middle of 08 when Mr. Harper asks Parliament for a mandate going forward. That mandate will be training of Afghan forces, protecting aid workers and helping with reconstruction. In fact changes are already underway with the announcement of the focus changing to training Afghan forces. The Liberals have signaled they are prepared to consider this. The NDP will agree to nothing.
On the dispute with the three provinces over equalization..let's remember there are 7 provinces and three territories who are quite happy with the new arrangements. None of the other provinces supported Calvert's and William's position prior to Harper announcing the new equalization formula. Mr. Calvert of Sask. is probably going to the polls by next Spring and if polls are right he will be defeated. An agreement with Nova Scotia will be reached outside of equalization and Danny Williams is appearing to be unhinged to the rest of Canada with his over the top rhetoric . So his credibility is being questioned. There is no hint that Conservatives are in trouble in Sask. and when faced with a choice between Mr. Harper and Mr. Dion in an election my bets are with Harper.
Why are people so worried about Mr. Harper's style of running his government. As long as cabinet ministers are satisfied, business is being done and there is no corruption or scandal it is just a red herring used by those that dislike Harper but an issue that most Canadians have little interest in. When critics focus on Harper's style of management it is because they are devoid of any real crticisms.

Nik, the issues PM Harper and the Conservatives will likely face in the next election will be a hard slug to deal with.
You definitely sum it up in your words" The Prime Minister has to exercise caution to ensure this situation does not transfer over to what Canadians think of Harper the man."
This is a crusial point.

I agree with the two issues Nik raises as being critical for Harper, but of course the environment is the third elephant in the room for him. Harper appears totally clueless on global warming and only seems intent on making cosmetic gestures. He can't make meaningful cuts to GHG emissions without alienating his Alberta power base, already annoyed by the income trust debacle. Harper has mismanaged all three of these issues dramatically. One wonders how he ever got the reputation in some circles as a great thinker. The only reason he is not completely in the political doldrums is the ineptitude of the Liberals and the NDP.

I find the criticisms of Mr. Harper as being a "bully" and a "one man show" pretty hollow indicating that he is probably doing a pretty good job. I read another comment of his being "arrogant" (apparently more so than the observer has ever seen in Canadian politics). A person would have to have lived in a cave during the previous Liberal administrations to consider this government and more specifically, Mr. Harper arrogant. How soon we forget the brown envelopes and Shawinigates of the past. And this behaviour we reward with the Order of Canada? I have no doubt that solutions will be found with both Newfoundland and Saskatchewan but not perhaps sufficient to appease the greed of their present leaders. As far as the war goes, I am convinced that our actions there at least forestall similar action here within our borders. The solution of training and arming the Afghanistan people to be self-sufficient in warding off aggression is in the process of implementation. Most Canadians appear to favor this approach and we all favor keeping our service personnel well equipped, well trained and as safe as reasonably possible.

Hi Nik, What do you mean, "What do you think?"
What do I think about your writing a column for Sun Media, or about the current political scene re Harper and the Conservatives?

As a columnist I think you'll have a very conservsative boss. A columnist usually has a fairly free rein if the journalist has a certain established credential. However, if the major advertisers find the columns too unfavourable your freedom can be quickly restrained. I call all media conservative. They are subservient to their corporate masters. However I wish you the best and hope you can
bring some balance on the 'left'- 'right' scale. I find most Sun newspaper readers are conservative leaning and they could do with realism which you may bring to their reading.
Personally I view Sun newspapers as trash tabloids similar to those found at a grocery store check-out counter.

Re the political scene, all I see is disppointment. I had hoped that following Martin we would get better governance. Alas, it is not to be. Nothing that Harper has said or done alleviates the distrust I have of him if he ever got a majority government. The words and actions of this government paralells those of the Republican Party in the US. I predicted what would happen there and I was proven correct. Only I didn't realize it would be so bad. In the future And not too far into the future now) it will be revealed what a corrupt, dictatorial, tyrannical government this has been. No better, maybe worse, than the conventioal stereotype of some Asian, African and South American governments. My error was in believing that the American public (asleep at the switch) would wake up and see what was happening to their country and get rid of them quickly. I had no idea that it would last 8 years.
Since Canadians don't shoiw themselves to be any more astute politically, I fear the same could happen here. Thank goodness, we don't have fixed terms. Harper is taking a page form the Republican playbook. He is a front for the corporatocracy. The same corporatocracy that has taken over the US government. His chief advocate is Tom Flaganan an American who came from the same seed.
Harper cannot change his spots even if he wanted to. He will try to paint them over temporarily. He has to cede to the directives of his backers. No, not his advisors. They are just pawns.The real backers are the corporate oliarchy. But they are ingenious in concealing their sphere of enfluence. Canadians have to open their eyes and minds so as not to go down the road that the present US government is leading its countrymen.

Hi, Nik,

You state 'The latest SES Research survey shows the Tories and Liberals in a dead heat'. A little disingenuous in light of the fact that the latest poll I'm aware of, July 7, I think Angus Reid, ranked the Conservatives at 37%, Liberals at 28% - not a dead heat but a respectable lead for the Tories - not sure when the latest SES poll was conducted.

You add 'In fact, there is currently no party voters are willing to trust with a majority mandate' and I agree that this seems to be the case.

However I believe there is steadily increasing support for Mr Harper - witness the turnaround of popular sentiment re Kyoto;
the widespread approval of his intent in Northern Canadian waters; the success of his Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice in recent weeks; the eminently sensible handling of the RCMP matter. In fact, I think we can thank Mr Harper for putting the foolishness of Kyoto mainly behind us - I wonder if, in the manner of doing so once and for all, there will be a general election called.

Afghanistan is a difficult situation - as much for the Liberals as for the Conservatives (the NDP have no valid opinion) - and I believe Mr Harper's 'consensus' statement goes a long way to explain Conservative views.

I agree that there are some problems with federal-provincial relations at this time. Danny Williams is such a loud mouthed bully that, although he may carry the day in Newfoundland, he will alienate voters across the country. Rodney MacDonald is still trying to work out an agreeable arrangement with the federal government - the clock's still ticking on that one. And Mr Calvert is using the issue to fight for and keep his position as Premier safe - don't think he can do it - time will tell.

Hi Nik,

Will just add, before reading the posts, in answer to you 'sue-me' comment.

Don't you think Mr Harper's comment meant that he believes the federal government has legal right on their side in this controversey with the provinces?

Nik, further to yesterday's comments.
The two brushfires your mentioned. Yes I agree these appear to be the two biggest concerns for Harper right now. However I have a feeling that by the time the election rolls around health care may dominate again. Also something totally unexpected may jump up and bite the voters ass. Many have short attention spans and quite often a shrewd politician will 'create' as issue that attracts the attention of voters for the short term of an electioon campaign. We should always expect the unexpected.

Excuse the spelling and typos. I am not a typist and I did this in a hurry.
As for Afghanistan. I find it dificult to believe that the majority of Canadians believe that our being in Afghanistan enhances our international reputation. Any conversation with anyone from other parts of the world will reveal that the opposite is true. Since the war in Iraq the reputation of the US is at an alltime low and still sinking. So as a result anyone seeing aiding or abetting the US will similarly recieve a lower rating on their reputation scale. Since we have such a high rate immigrants in our populationany conversation with them will demonstate that that is the situation. As long as we support the US administration our reputation will suffer.And in my opinion most Canadians know this. To belive such a poll I would need to know several conditions. The context of how the question was framed, how the question was asked, the demographics, broken down into catagories, especially regions. There are parts of Canada who have practically no immigrant population and and/or do not travel and therefore have no idea of what others think of us.
If you believe in polls then 70% of Quebec are opposed to our being in Afdghistan. and that's where Harper is counting on to gain enough seats to form his majority. I guess that's why he temporarily says he'll change our envolvment after Feb 09 from a military operation to a solely reconstruction one.
Nothing that Harper says will assauge those who know what the "mission" is. That is, to help the US in it's control and domination of another country.
It's not the amount of casualties that is the determining factor. It is the fact that it is WRONG.
BTW Harper may be bouyed by the fact, if you believe in polls, that people in Quebec are not as concerned about Health Care as they once were. They don't seem to think that it is as big an issue as it once was. I happen to think it will the top issue again when at election time.

As for Equakization or you suggest that most Canadians might not know who is right or wrong on this issue. I think a lot of them do and they know that the Federal government is wrong. Many understand that it boils down to a single word. Confederation. Instead of 13 separate states we join as one. As such those who are better off (for any given periom of time) contribute to those who are not so fortunate. When we see Ottawa opposing the transfer from the more to the less, we know they are wrong. The better off provinces may not want to do this. They want the benefits of Confederation but are negligent when it comes to the responsibilities of Confederation.
The biggest issue for me in this or any election is, caring for the poor. The primary reason for any government is security of its people. One cannot have security unless one has air, water, food and shelter. The first responsibility of government is to provide this to everyone. And because we are blessed to live in such a rich country we can also expect our government to provide more. It can easily afford to make sure each has other basic necessities of daily living.
I require that our government consider nothing else until this is done.
Planning to spend $7.3 billion on the military over the next few years is obscene. How can one look at some Native Canadian community (and others)
and do this. And then stand there an say "I'm a good guy. I'm doing the best for Canada." If I were not a peaceful person I would be tempted too ...................

Hello Nik,

I think that you really summarized it very well, by describing that, "one cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube"!

Have a great summer!

Nik’s view is right on. The key area will be Quebec, where either the Conservatives or the Liberals could make a major sweep of the millions of votes currently parked with the Bloc Quebecois, for lack of an acceptable national political party. They will determine who gets the additional seats needed to form a majority government.

CONSERVATIVES
The key issue in Quebec is Harper’s foreign and defence policy and, most particularly, his Afghanistan policy. The Conservatives are making some very good moves. The sending of the Van Doo battle group from Quebec to Kandahar as a distinct, French-speaking contingent of 2500 soldiers, under its own Francophone leaders, is admirable. This will overcome the perception that Harper's government is anti-French. Quebecers may even forget O’Connor's bizare previous astatement that Generals are no longer required to be bilingual. And the casualties are both expected and already factored into Quebec attitudes.

Secondly, the re-opening of the St-Jean Military College is masterful. It allowed minister O’Connor to highlight that the Liberals had callously closed it twelve years ago, but HE was ensuring that young Francophone officers received an education in their own language and in their own cultural milieu.

Thirdly, an airforce support unit will be created in Bagotville.

The last shoe to drop will perhaps be the contracts for the arctic patrol vessels or ice breakers in Levis Quebec, promised during the election campaign.

However, this can’t hide the fact that Quebecers absolutely reject the Harper policy on Afghanistan. Harper claims that Canadians have no moral issue with the war. He is wrong! Quebecers are not cowards – but they don’t want to be part of what they consider to be an American war for empire. The lack of development, the growing civilian casualties, the corruption, the exploding poppy trade, etc are uppermost in their mind. The Conservative rhetoric merely confirms to Quebecers that their government is doing Bush’s dirty work since it even talks like him. Ironically, the government’s own polling demonstrated that its Bush-talk is turning off the whole country.

LIBERALS
Whether the masterful Conservative tactical moves can outweigh its untenable underlying policy on Afghanistan depends, in large part, on how the Liberals react. Currently the Liberals have a serious dilemma they can't hide. They formed the government that got Canada into Afghanistan. It was the government that closed the military college in St-Jean. It was the government that regularly volunteered troops for foreign « good deeds », only to find out that the barracks were empty.

Worse, the Liberal party under Dion and Coderre (defence critic) is determined to defend the record of its former master, Jean Chretien. Thus it reacts to O’Connor’s move by defending Chretien’s closing of St-Jean rather than admitting that it was stupid. The party is still split on the Afghanistan mission, saying that it would fight, but only to 2009. Worse, it says that it would stay on in Afghanistan, but only in a non combat role, sounding cowardly and unCanadian. Moreover, it fails miserably to identify the issues where Harper is vulnerable on Afghanistan, such as the increasing use of Canadian-ordered air strikes on populated areas rather than "boots on the ground", the multi-billion dollar explosion of equipment purchases that will not arrive until after Canada leaves Afghanistan, the lack of manpower to use the equipment and respond to other peace-making missions, the continued failure to re-establish local administration, the rule of law, and development in Kandahar province.

THE WINNER IS …
The winning party in Quebec must drastically change its approach.. The Conservatives must distance themselves from Bush’s war on terror. That is very easy to do since they need only blame our Afghanistan presence on the previous Liberal government and then set about bringing closure as soon as possible. However, this war is very important to the Conservative political base, including its Western reformists as well as the equipment oriented defence industry and it is doubtful that its policy will change. The Liberals, on the other hand, must also turn the page, and abandon their concern for Jean Chretien’s heritage. They must tacitly admit that many decisions made by the Chretien government, and by Paul Martin as well, were ill advised. Then they can go about developing an internationalist foreign and defence policy in the light of current conditions that responds to the vision that Quebecers have of Canada’s place in the world. Success will go the team that best makes the required shift in policy. And this will in turn determine which party governs Canada.

Hi Nik,

Thanks for the thought-provoking article. I look forward to your future comments in the Ottawa Sun.

A recent Strategic Counsel public-opinion report stated only 40 per cent of respondents across Canada, and almost none in Quebec, support the Afghanistan mission. If these numbers persist, this issue will be all about pandering to the polls in the next election and may possibly result in the Tories shifting the role of the mission. If this occurs, then watch for more vote pandering through ongoing scurrilous attacks on the opposition parties because they dared to call for the mission to end before or by February 2009. They will be berated and blamed for being soft on terrorism, betraying the troops and responsible for Canada's failure to help fight the war on terror. The Republicans used this shoddy strategy during the Vietnam War to discredit the Democrats.

As for disgruntled premiers, the government will just toss them more money disguised as some new-fangled ”equalizer”. Lucre is the one therapy that soothes big egos and mends hurt feelings.

Come what may, I think these brushfires will be under control before the next election. The almighty pursuit of power will prevail, principles be damned! The Tories are sorely lacking a moral compass. If ever they had one is moot!

I truly think the brushfire that is going to burn their butts is health care. Why? Stats Canada recently reported that the 65+ consisted of a record 13.7% of the total population in 2006 while the under-15 fell to its lowest ever level of 17.7%. Because health-care funding comes from general government revenues, this discrepancy between a growing ageing population and a shrinking labor force will eventually result in a financially unsustainable system. It’s a catastrophe in the making.

The present government has to cease being reactive by throwing more money at a defunct, dysfunctional system. Patient wait times are inordinately long, resulting in unnecessary suffering, undue anxiety, poor quality of life and maybe early demise. All politicians must be proactive by, firstly, admitting that the Canada Health Act is outmoded and, secondly, working together to solve the problem now to avoid a future crisis. Other countries with universal health insurance systems have administered their systems responsibly so that they were prepared for the shift in demographics.

One of the most poignant examples I’ve seen of our failing system was a recent article in the Globe and Mail, “Babies have no hospital bed to come home to”, which stated that “Over the past six months, at least 40 patients from three provinces have found themselves smack in the middle of a medical drama. With no neonatal intensive-care beds available for the babies in Canada, provincial government officials were sent scrambling, trying to find care south of the border.“ The birth of a baby is a momentous milestone in a family’s life and a new mother should have the support of kith and kin on this glorious occasion.

The intelligent answer to this quandary is a parallel, private health-care system, as other developed countries have successfully instituted. In fact, Canadian Medical Association delegates voted (by a two-to-one margin) for such a system at its annual meeting in 2005. It stated that patients should be able to go outside public health-care and use private insurance if they can't get essential medical treatment in a timely manner. But politicians turned a deaf ear.

Many Canadians who can afford to pay for quality medical services are already using private institutions, inside and outside Canada. It allows those patients to avoid queuing, which, ironically, is in direct violation of the Canada Health Act. But politicians continue to wear blinders.

Before the next election, will one of the major party leaders have the goolies to admit that our deteriorating health-care system needs to be put right, now! High-quality health care for Canadians should be paramount. Politicians’ loyalty should be to the people who elected them and not the self-serving pursuit of power. Just once, forget about vote pandering and do what’s honorable. As Alan K. Simpson (Republican Senator from Wyoming, 1979-1997) rightly said:

“If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters.”