How do Canadians feel about PM Steven Harper? (cabin, title)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mikeyyc

PC Government for 38 years.

Alberta is really just a single party state that changes the party once every generation or so.

And this is supposed to be a *good* thing?

[mikeyyc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And this is supposed to be a *good* thing?

Just a thing. Better than 38 years of Liberals IMHO.

Totally off topic. Sorry to OP.

[minibrings]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Hmm... well, Harper was actually in favour of Canada taking part in the war when Bush wanted to go in 2003, but the Tories were in Opposition at the time. Once Harper became Prime Minister, in 2006, it had become totally obvious that it was a disaster so of course he didn't want to throw Canada into that mess.

Had Harper been in PM in 2003, Canada would be in Iraq alongside the U.S. right now, or at least desperately trying to pull out.

Sorry... I forgot about this one.. good thing the opposition stopped him!

[travellingman]

Originally Posted by ajau

Seems to me that the Anglo's of Quebec and the Maritimers like to be coddled by big government. They like to have government dictate the economy to them and they like government corporations dictating the terms of business in the region.

So far Harper's government has been the biggest spending government in history...in an effort to 'dictate the economy'. What Harper wants is power, even at the expense of his ideology. That type of person does not make a good leader, either that or he make too good a leader and ends up seizing power for 30 years. Given his disrespect for democratic principles, I'd hate to see what he'd do with a majority. The guy's a control freak ... muzzling his back benchers, refusing to let the 5th estate do its job, starting up attack ads in Canada, proroguing parliament TWICE to prevent it from doing its job, being the first and only prime minister in the history of the Commonwealth to be found in contempt of parliament...and shrugging it off! Sounds like some rinky dink third world dictatorship, doesn't it?

[Stubblejumper]

As a politician, he's top notch. He's spent 5 years facing 3 parties who absolutely despise him, and would love nothing more than to see him defeated. Yet, he's consistently outmanouvered all of them. Like him or hate him, he's far more cunning that he's usually given credit for.

As a leader, he's been good, but not great. The economy has been reasonably well managed during his tenure, despite opposition demands of more spending (which, having a minority, he's caved to). Mostly, he's been able to hold the socially conservative voices in his party in check, which I applaud him for. Once in a while something a little wacky sneaks through, but he's done pretty well in that regard.

As a person, he comes across as a bit of a jerk. But, I don't really have a problem with that. I'm looking for a Prime Minister, not a best friend.

I voted that I don't always like him. Mostly he's been pretty good though.

[Stubblejumper]

Originally Posted by travellingman

So far Harper's government has been the biggest spending government in history...in an effort to 'dictate the economy'. What Harper wants is power, even at the expense of his ideology. That type of person does not make a good leader, either that or he make too good a leader and ends up seizing power for 30 years. Given his disrespect for democratic principles, I'd hate to see what he'd do with a majority. The guy's a control freak ... muzzling his back benchers, refusing to let the 5th estate do its job, starting up attack ads in Canada, proroguing parliament TWICE to prevent it from doing its job, being the first and only prime minister in the history of the Commonwealth to be found in contempt of parliament...and shrugging it off! Sounds like some rinky dink third world dictatorship, doesn't it?

This is pretty half cocked criticism. This is the first time the governing cabinet has been found in contempt, not Stephen Harper himself (Bev Oda was also found in contempt, quite rightly, I think).

The first prime minister to face that kind of issue was Sir John A. Macdonald, who was censured (which is virtually the same thing, though it doesn't come with a non confidence vote or definite punishment). Oddly enough, he was also the first to prorogue parliament to avoid a scandal (the Pacific scandal), and the first to introduce the idea of the party as a disciplined, centralized team (ie: muzzled back benchers).

So far, he's sounding less like a 'rinky dink third world dictator', and very much like Sir John A. Or, for that matter, very much a politican in the style of Jean Chretien (autocratic leader, prorogued parliament to avoid a scandal).

Of course, he didn't introduce the attack ad to Canada either. I assume you're not familiar with the (somewhat) famous 1993 'Jean Chretien' PC ad? It's likely they were in use before that, but that's the first I can recall, and certainly the most famous.

Has he used them? Absolutely. And he's done it because they're extremely effective. And I think that actually addresses the first part of your argument. Yes, he does want power. That's why almost all politicians go into politics in the first place. Somehow though, people make the assumption that because he's a far cagier politican than his opposition, he's somehow more power hungry, or cares less about the rules.

The voting record actually exposes your control freak theory as completely false. Conservative MP's are actually more likely to vote against party lines than are NDP or Bloc MPs (How'd They Vote? :: Canadian MPs in Focus)

[Blinkers]

He is a smug, arrogant liar. Example: Not even working with the opposition parties to include some of their ideas in the budget even though he has a MINORITY government.

[Stubblejumper]

Originally Posted by Blinkers

He is a smug, arrogant liar. Example: Not even working with the opposition parties to include some of their ideas in the budget even though he has a MINORITY government.

See, this is what I meant by people mistaking political saavy for arrogance or deviousness, or any other quality they don't like.

It was an almost certain deal that the gov't would fall before the end of last week. So, he had two choices, really. He could aquiesce to demands, so much so that the budget passed, allowing the gov't to fall on the contempt matter.

Or, he could hold out on the budget and make that a major issue in the coming campaign.

Basically, your argument is that because he didn't roll over and give in to the opposition parties he's arrogant and smug (I'm not sure how your example backs up the liar accusation).

There's a lot to dislike about the man, but it just grates on my nerves to hear person after person make knee jerk judgements.

[Blinkers]

If you have a minority, you need the support of the opposition to pass the budget. He made no concessions. Therefore, the government fell. This has happened in the past with Harper as well. And you know what is grating on my nerves? When people like you put words into other people's mouths. I never said he had to 'ROLL OVER and GIVE IN' as you eloquently put it. Had they worked TOGETHER or made a few CONCESSIONS (my words), then it is likely that the budget would have been passed. Refusing to budge because you believe so much in your budget is what I would call arrogance. And this isn't the only example of this. And a really good way to have your government not face falling is to NOT be found in contempt in the first place.

[Cornerguy1]

Originally Posted by Blinkers

If you have a minority, you need the support of the opposition to pass the budget. He made no concessions. Therefore, the government fell. This has happened in the past with Harper as well. And you know what is grating on my nerves? When people like you put words into other people's mouths. I never said he had to 'ROLL OVER and GIVE IN' as you eloquently put it. Had they worked TOGETHER or made a few CONCESSIONS (my words), then it is likely that the budget would have been passed. Refusing to budge because you believe so much in your budget is what I would call arrogance. And this isn't the only example of this. And a really good way to have your government not face falling is to NOT be found in contempt in the first place.

You've missed Stubblejumper's point completely.

Harper knew his days were numbered and chose to die on the budget because it was a much more defensible position in front of the electorate than contempt would have been.

It's a "when you have lemons, make lemonade" scenario.

Does that make Harper admirable? Depends on your viewpoint, but it does strongly suggest the man is an astute politician.