RSS Feed Menu
Last evening, the Conservative Party of Canada won their first majority government since 1988 – a welcome accomplishment. But as the jubilation surrounding the newly granted four year mandate dies down, one must pause to consider whether the Party’s agenda is sufficiently ambitious.
“Our agenda is the same agenda with a majority government or a minority government,” Harper told reporters during the campaign.
This is a disappointing sentiment to many of the conservative activists who helped him build a conservative political infrastructure in Canada: blogs, radio shows, the newly-launched SUNTV news network – all the way down to the massively efficient Get Out the Vote machine that helped him dramatically over-perform expectations on election night.
This is not to mention that idle hands are the devil’s workshop. An insufficiently aspirational agenda means not only the disappointment of ideological backers, but the potential for wrongdoing and corruption. If Harper’s agenda isn’t aggressive enough to keep his caucus busy over the next few years, they will wander – and scandal will begin to creep up on him and his fellow MPs.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has argued – and rightly so – that he is the best of the party leaders to lead the country on a path out of the recession. The Conservatives have also pledged to the hold the line on regulations, pass tough-on-crime legislation and provide some small amount of tax relief for families.
But what they propose besides that is largely disappointing: a pledge to increase health care transfers to the provinces by 6% annually, the complication of the tax code with things like credits for going to the gym, and the continued funding of the arts.
The Canadian parliamentary system allows a majority government to pass aggressive legislation while minimizing the tools that the opposition has to block it, which is any principled conservative’s dream. But the Conservative Party’s vision has been sadly parochial – appropriate in a minority government situation, but unsatisfactory given the breadth of the mandate granted to them last night.
Where is the transition into a public-private health care system? Will they actually cut significant amounts of spending as opposed to ‘waste and mismanagement’? Could we scrap the election gag law and dismantle the speech-impeding ‘Human Rights Commissions’? Instead of holding the line on regulations, actually cutting some red tape?
The time to aggressively pursue conservative goals is now. In a set term of power, the key is to get the assertive, ideological items accomplished first – so you have time to clean up if it’s unpopular. Consider Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin, who took the unpopular step of confronting public unions on collective bargaining without delay after being elected. Conservative. Ambitious. Immediate.
Big-C Conservatives have told small-c conservatives since 2006 that their every misstep and compromise on principle was because they were in a minority government. This would all change, we were told, when the Conservatives got their coveted majority. As a partisan activist in Montreal, I got used to hearing this line over and over again – probably even used it myself a couple times.
Well, now they have one. Let’s see if they’ll form a government that is worthy of the activists who helped bring them there.
Add Tim on twitter: www.twitter.com/timkmak
Did Harper run on a mandate to privatize health care? I must have missed that.
Tim,
Actually, Mulroney also won a majority in 1988.
As someone that used to live in Ontario, I was quite surprised that the NDP received such a bump in the votes. I still recall living under Bob Rae and the NDP government during the early 90s in Ontario. It was an unmitigated disaster. Hard to believe that political party had any mustard after that debacle.
Needless to say, Harper was the better choice among the contenders, even if you generally lean liberal. Then again, Canada’s conservatives are like USA Democrats.
This is where you get something called the democratic deficit, and the raw contempt for the democratic process. Canadian health care is universally lauded as a Canadian value. Our Conservatives, as dedicated to dismantling the democratic process as they are, would never dream of removing something the entire culture values intrinsically.
Have you seen his poll numbers now? Have you considered President George W. Bush, who took the unpopular step of pushing for privatizing Social Security without delay after being elected in 2004 and saw Democrats returned to power in the very next election?
If Canadian Conservatives immediately and ambitiously push for more privatization of healthcare in Canada they will confirm every Republican Party North slur that their opponents throw against them.
Harper said again today, no big surprises. Sorry, Tim. Harper wants the Conservatives to become the natural governing party, not a one-term ideological diversion. The Liberal and Bloc votes – a quarter of the electorate – is now up for grabs. Lean too far right, too fast, and you will see the majority of that vote head to the NDP, which will inch towards the center, to absorb the bulk of it. Come the next federal election, the NDP, with a new leader like Thomas Mulcair (a former Quebec Liberal cabinet minister), could romp to victory.
Here in Ontario, we had a “Scott Walker” moment in the 1990s – Mike Harris’ Common Sense Revolution. Much of that work has been undone and forgotten, except for many Ontarians, Harris is a dirty word, as is Rae – Bob Rae and his leftist regime that preceded it. The current Ontario Liberal government looks worn-out and confused, but as long as they can campaign against the ghosts of Harris and Rae, they will have a fighting chance at winning a third straight mandate.
Canadian Conservatives are not US Conservatives. Harper is looking to broaden the tent, not circle the wagons like Republicans. On issues like taxes, he is policy driven rather than ideologically driven, championing speedy deficit reduction and lower corporate taxes, but not afraid to encourage/bribe the provinces to integrate (we call it harmonizing) the federal and provincial sales taxes. There is no question about top bracket income tax cuts or privatizing old age security and the Canada Pension Plan.
I suspect that if he wants to become more ideological adventurous, he will use his mandate to educate Canadians on why they should go that route rather than do what the Republicans are doing – trying to impose their vision on a population largely wary of what they are selling.
Harper plays a long term game. He’s an incrementalist, so don’t look for radical right shifts.
Harper is very pragmatic – he knows he doesn’t have the mandate, despite his majority, to implement his agenda…whatever that agenda may be. As previously mentioned, he didn’t run on reforming health care or for that matter dimantling funding for the arts. If he pursue these issues, the Conservatives better enjoy the next four years ’cause Canadian don’t have the stomach for US style conservatism.
If anything the electorate moved to the Left which hardly bodes well for big C conservatives in Canada. Canadians are very aware that if Harper had majority power 10 years ago we would likely be in Iraq, and have looser bank regulations.
Personally I hope that the Cons govern boldly and run the country the way they see fit. I’d like to know what they stand for. This past election was a joke – the Liberals ran an American, and the NDP is the NDP. What choice did anyone from the centre have?
Stephen Harper is a conservative, not a far-right extremist like US Republicans.
If he attempts to privatize the public health care system, in four years his party will be reduced to 2 seats and it will be the NDP and the Liberals fighting it out for control of parliament.
He’s going to try to move Canada incrementally to the right, not impose an unpopular far-right policy revolution on a public that has no tolerance for it.
Agreed. Also remember that ‘right’ depends on its frame of reference. Despite the ‘conservative’ label, if Harper was here in the USA, he would at best be a moderate Republican. But more likely, he would just be a right-leaning democrat.
The Canadian health care system is sacrasanct in the eyes of the majority of the population. Much in the same way that in the USA, despite all the harping, Medicare and Social Security are now staples. Even the Tea Party is not looking for their abolishment. They just want some fiscal sanity to exist in government. Too bad their message was hijacked by the crazy wings of their movement so now the core notion of fiscal responsibility is now drowned out by the vocal minority of nutjobs.
“…given the breadth of the mandate granted to them last night.” Breadth? 40% support, on a 61% turnout; Harper’s majority is based on 1 in 4 voters having said yes to him, and on the fortuitous circumstance that a large number of seats were three-way splits with his party benefitting. Had his opponents united in the centre-left, I suspect he would not today be the head of a minority government, let alone a majority one. I agree with the posters who call him an incrementalist, ‘cuz perhaps he knows that 75% of the country won’t get behind any push too far to the right.
But instead of celebrating the emergence of a fellow conservative at the head of the government of Canada, why not look at some of the underhanded things Harper did to get there, and which should give any morally-oriented conservative pause? He’s the first p.m. to head a government found to be in contempt of parliament, for starters. Some maintain that that was all about partisan politics, but look further and you’ll find that it precisely fits Harper’s rather contemptuous attitude toward the press, his political opponents, artists, civil servants who bring findings to light with which he disagrees, his government’s auditor-general, etc. Harper didn’t outline anything like a (quasi-)privatizing plan for the healthcare system because then Canadians would know what at the moment they only suspect; he wants to undertake more than he lets on and take the country in a direction that a sizeable majority disagrees with.
rtab2 Some perspective on the contempt of parliament is required here. That was a function of the minority situation in parliament and by extension committee. I was politics pure and simple.
The little guy from shawinigan routinely flouted committees request for documents, see Grand Mere golf course and sponsorship scandal, but as he had a majority no contempt as his backbenchers quashed the requests.
I am not excusing either of them, as I fully believe that parliament is supreme and they should be presented with all information, I just like balance.
Furthermore I think he has a lot more going upstairs, than to immediately launch into some massive turn to the right. He is an incrementalist and he is not going to indulge your deluded and paranoid fantasies no that he has a majority.
I don’t know much about Canadian politics, so I appreciate those of you from north of the border who offer up the more detailed explanations, some of which I can absorb. Thanks.
I had posted on another thread that Harper receives the same hyperbole and vitriolic attacks from the left here in Canada that Obama receives from the right in the states. It’s hilarious the language, demagogic imagery and paranoid fantasies are nearly identical just from opposite ends of the spectrum.
And the trendy left here realy doesn’t like it when you compare them to Rush, Levine et al.
Obviously you don’t read the National Post (Gunter) or Sun Media newspapers. The poor downtrodden right is as negative and nasty in Canada as any where else in the world. As for attacks on Harper you might want to Google his name in association with The Northern Alliance, The Reform Party, the Citizens Coalition.
As an outsider to this I’m curious… Does Harper have enough control over his caucus that he would be able to keep them from pushing harder to the right? Or, from a U.S. perspective, would he be in a situation like John Boehner in the House with a conservative majority pushing for things far beyond what he thinks the country can take but just wanting it pushed through because they can?
Also, what’s the ideological makeup of the new Tory MPs in places like Ontario and BC. I’m assuming these folks are more moderate types compared to Alberta Conservatives who would have to fear losing their seats if Harper takes the country too far right. Is that correct?
I agree that the Canadian left is a little over the top with the rhetoric around Harper. He has not been the bogeyman that the Left claimed. He can be stronghanded, but I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. Paul Martin was a pussy, look how well that went.
At the end of the day he is competent and has managed the country well. We’re doing okay, and that’s why 40% voted for the status quo.
FYI 40% popular vote is a relatively strong Canadian majority – there have only been a handful of government that have cracked 50% of the vote.
Over the long term, I’m hoping a strong Liberal Party re-emerges that can offer a centrist option that would allow the Cons to move a little to the Right and offer some contrast.
Paul Martin was terrible! He balanced the budget, he left a huge budget surplus, he blocked an attempt to deregulate banks (pushed by Harper). Harper came in changed things, he eliminated the budget surplus, he ran up a huge deficit, cut corporate taxes (which were already way below American rates), cut consumer protection in the food industry (20+ people died soon after) cut grants to the arts, stacked the Senate etc.
“As an outsider to this I’m curious… Does Harper have enough control over his caucus that he would be able to keep them from pushing harder to the right? Or, from a U.S. perspective, would he be in a situation like John Boehner in the House with a conservative majority pushing for things far beyond what he thinks the country can take but just wanting it pushed through because they can?”
The (relatively) far right fringe in the CPC has been marginalized. Harper is very much in control, he owns his caucus and backbench.
That was one of the biggest criticism of Harper, that he is a one man show / control freak and if given a chance he would have run by himself in all 308 ridings.
Ideologicaly the new members from the 905 / Metro Torono area would be moderate republican. Some are probab;y Red Tory.
Alternative Hed:
“I voted for Harper’s majority, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt!”
japhi: “The (relatively) far right fringe in the CPC has been marginalized. Harper is very much in control, he owns his caucus and backbench.”
Everything I’ve read tells me that Harper rules with an iron fist. In… Canada. Somehow the idea of a Canadian dictator feels viscerally absurd.
—
Harper would be nuts to aggressively move right on 40% of the popular vote, after having run on a platform of stability.
Also, nobody should be holding up Scott Walker as a paragon of political savvy. The man grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory in terms of popular opinion, and may well lose to a recall vote because of it. Walker screwed that one up so badly that Republicans could lose the entire state legislature over recall votes.
Tim Mak, you should be at once praising Scott Walker for exposing the road to political victory while cursing him for passing it by. Walker showed you that if you make your initial proposal extreme, the Dems will capitulate on most of it to expose the really nutty parts. From there you take their deal and drop the extreme stuff to grab political victory on the other measures in the bill.
Harper shouldn’t even be trying that strategy, because he ran as the candidate of the economy and of stability. He should be running the economy well and implementing only policy that is generally considered long overdue. He should be distancing himself from the elements unpalatable to much of the country, and let Canada be comfortable with a Conservative government.
Harper has his majority. He plays a long term game, and that has been to destroy the Liberal Party of Canada, put a stke through their heart so they never come back and replace the liberals with the Conservative Party in the hearts and minds of Canadians as the “natural governing party”. (sorry about that clunky sentence)
He is not going to blow that and allow the “hidden agenda” to come back. Despite the paranoid lunancy of the trendy left.
http://rabble.ca/news/2011/05/harpers-majority-whats-left-us
He is going to allow the public get to know theconservative party a moderate right of center party that makes incremental changes and not some rabid right wing ideologue.
pquint: yes, the idea of a Canadian dictator is absurd. Canadian politics are very fluid, evidenced by this last election. Unlike Americans, Canadians tend to vote in their best interests and if Harper strays too far right, he and the CPC will be toast.
Love him or hate him Harper is a political stud. I would bet he plays to the centre, and pushes Layton to the fringe.
As a student of Canadian and American conservatism let me say a few things.
He is the most ideologically literate conservative Prime Minister in Canadian history.
The election campaign was a political masterstroke, Harper himself set the campaign narrative.
It was a choice between the Conservatives vs. a coalition of Liberals-Socialists-Separatists, it was that simple.
His aim years ago, was to destroy the Canadian Liberal party of Canada, and he has succeeded.
We may see the party swallow up blue Liberals like John Manley and Frank McKenna, and grow further.
This man thinks ahead. He will incrementally advance the conservative agenda without hurting the movement politically..pragmatic enough to adjust to reality..because he is a conservative. a lot Canadians hate his guts, but they are all on the left, and cannot do a damn thing about it.
Harper has immense loyalty among MP’s because they owe their political careers to him.
Last night was a huge victory for PM Harper. Think of it as Obama in 2008, with way more power.
His aim years ago, was to destroy the Canadian Liberal party of Canada, and he has succeeded.
This sounds like considerable hubris to me. How many times have I heard this said by leaders of parties on the left and right. I rather doubt the Liberal party is going to disappear.
Rocketship: As a “student of Canadian and American conservatism” then you know that the Conservative Party had a huge majority in 1988 and in the next election the Conservative party fell from 151 seats to 2. That’s right 2! Unlike Mulroney the Conservative leader in 1988, who was a very successful executive and is still on the board of several corporations, Harper has been in government or lobbying government his whole life, no business experience. So I guess that’s what the extreme right was waiting for someone who has never done an honest day’s work in his life.
We’ll see about that. Obama had two houses and the crown…, how’d that go? In 2008 everyone predicted the demise of the GOP.
The Liberals DO look dead. Their last 2 leaders were complete duds.
I think this ass kicking is what the Liberals needed – Iggy can go back to Harvard and write books, and the party can re-org.
Or, the NDP moves to the middle and rolls left centre Liberals under them, or vice versa if the NDP struggles.
For the first time since Chretien, Canadian politics should be interesting.
Very interesting to read the entirely different tone in the comments about Harper compared to those about “leading” (cough) Republicans in the U.S.
There’s a lesson in this for the GOP, but they are screaming “la la la” with their hands over their ears.
I don’t know a lot about Canadian politics but it seems to follow the pattern of Liberals being in power for long periods interspersed with brief conservative govt’s that usually end in disaster due to over reaching or corruption. In this particular case Harper has a parliamentary majority but he was only elected with only 40% of the vote because the left of center Liberals and the NDP essentially split the left of center vote. The Bloc Quebecois essentially collapsed which was probably the most significant factor to emerge from this election. Thus 60% of the electorate voted against the conservatives, not exactly a ringing endorsement and Harper’s post election comments reflected this. There’s a school of thought that believes he’s trying to destroy the liberals so the electoral choice becomes a clearer one between conservatives and the left but it seems to me that this would be hard to engineer and very risky if the Liberals and NDP get their act together by for example an electoral pact. Despite the conservative victory the results of this election seem more more complicated than they superficially appear.
How difficult, from a procedural standpoint, is it for minority parties to cooperate and block a majority initiative? This article implies it isn’t easy.
This article implies it isn’t easy.
It’s next to impossible. Parliamentary govts are essentially electoral dictatorships. The only things that stops them is extra parliamentary activity aimed at influencing public opinion. This is what has happened over several issues in Britain where the conservative dominated coalition govt tried to impose solutions and have run up against opposition in the health service or over the privatisation of the country’s forests.
Listen to the far right twit! Hey Mak King Harper got 40% of the vote, 60% voted against him and the Fraser Institute crap. Sun TV? Fox News North gets 3,000 to 4,000 viewers a day. The National Post loses money on every issue. Yes Harper can pass just about any law he wants but remember Mulroney he quit rather than face an electorate that devastated his party. Harper after spending millions on this election and getting the support of 95% of the corporate media got about the same number of votes as he did in the last election. Harper does not have a mandate to destroy my country!
I am with those who say Harper is Canada’s GWB. And he will do more damage.
“Parliamentary govts are essentially electoral dictatorships.”
A bit of an exaggeration — there are some checks and balances in there.
Stephen Harper and the self-styled “Harper Government” are the most corrupt government in Canadian history. He deserved that contempt of parliament decision. The House could have defeated the government on the budget, but chose, rightly in my opinion, to proceed with the contempt motion. This is a short list of the corruption in the Harper Government and the contempt he has for the House of Commons and the people of Canada:
1) The “In and Out” Scam refers to a practice used by the Conservative Party during the 2006 election campaign. The national party transfered money to local candidates who were then provided with pre-signed bank transfers to send the money immediately back to the national party. Elections Canada has ruled that these transfers were illegal.
2) Failure to disclose up to $1.7 million in donations.
3) Bev Oda scandal – Oda rejected a church-based aid group called Kairos for renewal of its long-standing Canadian International Development Agency grant. She called the rejection a “CIDA decision,” but it turned out top CIDA officials had signed a note recommending approval of Kairos’s funding. That memo was later altered when the word “not” was penned in before “approve.” Oda told a House committee she didn’t know who inserted the “not,” only to admit later that she had ordered the doctoring of the document.
4) Helena Guergis expulsion – based on innuendo and unsubstantiated rumours, this Cabinet minister was publicly expelled from the Cabinet and from caucus. The RCMP have called the allegations “unsubstantiated” and closed the investigation without even questioning Guergis. Harper refused to apologize at the conclusion of the investigation and stated that there was “a wide range of problems” involving Guergis.
5) Prorogation of Parliament – twice!
6) Pushing for Senate reform during an election – and then appointing 35 senators (most of them big campaign donors). This new Senate then killed a climate change bill passed by the elected House of Commons without a debate.
7) Two Senators appointed by Harper have been charge with election fraud – and yet campaigned with Harper during the 2011 election.
8 ) His chief advisor, Bruce Carson, has been convicted of fraud five times. Harper has yet to explain how Carson got security clearance.
9) Using public funds to run attack ads against the leader of the Opposition, Michael Ignatieff, prior to the start of the elections
10) Trying to suppress the votes of 700 university students at the University of Guelph.
11) Allegations of vote suppression are currently being investigated by Elections Canada.
And that’s only what comes easily to mind…..
We already know about Harper’s plans to build prisons we can’t fill, because our incarceration rate is far too low – not even half of the US rate. And his plans to buy jet fighters we don’t need, because daily patrols over moose pasture and muskeg will clearly save our womenfolk from being ravished by the Red Menace.
By the end of the year, I predict he will reveal the rest of his platform:
-to stack the Supreme Court with ultraconservatives who believe the rights of corporations and governments outweigh the rights of citizens, and who will continue with his plan to disenfranchise the populace long after Harper himself retires;
-to continue to stack the Senate with corrupt Tory bagmen, rainmakers and flunkies, neutralizing any possible chance of Senate reform for another generation;
-to eliminate all arms-length government funding bodies, so in future all grants, gifts, baksheesh and federal largesse flows directly from the PMO;
-to continue his unwavering yet irrational support of Israel in its persecution of the Palestinians, despite increasing and overwhelming evidence of human rights abuses and possibly even genocide; and
-to continue to disregard both custom and the rule of law as he face-stomps every Parliamentary tradition, procedure and legal requirement he finds evenly moderately inconvenient, into the Ottawa dust.
The Conservatives collected 40 % of the popular vote, with a turnout of 61%, so not even one eligible voter in five voted for his party. Sadly, the simple fact is that less than 20% of the populace has now essentially given this charmless, manipulative, close-minded autocrat the powers of a monarch.
Unless you’re a CEO or board member of a large corporation, it’s going to be a very long five years ….
If Harper thinks this election is anything close to a mandate for radical change he is GREATLY mistaken. This is a mandate to not rock the boat and stay the course. If he wants to get all Bushy and think this is message from god he does so at his own peril.
The only reason the Conservatives now have a majority is a combination of a flawed electoral system (http://www.fairvote.ca/en/Canadians-cheated-again-by-voting-system), really weak opposition party candidates (Ignatief is absolutely hopeless, he even lost his own riding) and a split vote (the Conservative party is the ONLY conservative party in Canda).
Canadians are getting fed up with elections at this point (4 in the last decade and now 2011) but if Harper gets too big for his britches at least an election can be called and 6 weeks later he’s kicked to the curb. I actually hope he overreaches, he’d like nothing more than to turn Canada into George Bush’s America and once Canadians are hip to that he’s gone.
Furthermore:
Since Canada does have a public-private health care system (the Gov pays private health care givers) I can only assume he really wants a private health care system. Canadians would FREAK OUT (and rightly so) if Harper tried this crap. Canada spends about half of what the US does, EVERYONE is covered and Canadians live 4 years longer on average. Taiwan Why, in the name of all that’s holy, would Canadians want to change that? Oh yeah, THEY DON’T. But I’m sure private insurance companies would love for it to happen because it’s a very profitable gig.
ottovbvs: “I rather doubt the Liberal party is going to disappear.”
While they may be able to recover, I don’t see where they go from here. I don’t know what their base is any more. I suppose you could call it the moderate left in their camp, but with Layton in the opposition the center-left could flee there to avoid re-electing Harper in four years they way they avoided the NDP in previous elections.
A charismatic leader might be able to do it. The same could be said of Jack Layton really screws up and turns out to be nutty or incompetent in opposition. Burning out in scandal is not out of the question with MP that are 19 years old (!).
—
shediac: “Fox News North gets 3,000 to 4,000 viewers a day.”
That’s a clear misrepresentation, and we have no need of those around here. It’s 3,000 to 4,000 viewers in their least-watched shows. The real numbers still aren’t good, but those aren’t the real numbers.
Make the case against Sun News TV on its merits. That’s not hard to do, by the way. Ezra Levant is practically Canada’s Glenn Beck.
For those who don’t understand Canadian political process: The Canadian health care system is NOT a federal mandate, it is a provincial one… Harper has no ability to “reform” healthcare since he’s not in charge of that Gig, so there’s really no point in talking about this.
The only thing that Harper could do would be to reduce the amount the Federal Government pays to the provincial systems — that’s it. BTW if he reduces corporate taxes and personal taxes as a “benefit” to the taxpayers, the provinces can increase these taxes by the same amount.
This is a foolish discussion.
Reading all the left wing bitter Harper haters makes me laugh.
Harper’s record
2004 99 seats 29.63% of vote
2006 124 seats, 36.27%
2008 143 37.65%
2011 167 39.62% (155 needed for a majority)
2015-16? Remember, the West and Ontario (outside Toronto) will get more seats from re apportioning, they all happen to be Conservative strongholds.
You see a trend? Is this guy a genius?
Tax cuts, market oriented policies work, and the Canadian people are embracing them.
We are now taking the immigrant vote away from the Liberals.
The Liberals are dying a slow death. Many want to merge with the NDP, but the NDP are sticking the middle finger in your face. It will not happen in this election cycle, if ever.
Expect Harper to get re elected in 4-5 years and the left wing Harper haters can suffer some more.
Keep your ideas in the US… please. Harper has only one mandate and that is to keep the economy strong…. I would think this is something you would like to emulate.