Stephen Harper

Media Pushes Prime Minister Harper over Possible Economic Doomsday

Greg Farries — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:57:56 -0600

Why the Conservatives could sweep Saskatchewan...

David McGrane — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:47:24 -0600

This op-ed piece will appear in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix on Thursday, October 9th.

With Conservative support taking a nosedive in Quebec, it seems that they need to add a considerable number of seats in English Canada if they are to form a majority government. All of the sudden, a Conservative sweep of Saskatchewan's seats could be the difference between a majority and minority Harper government. While Saskatchewan is an important part of the Conservatives' pursuit of a majority, our province also plays a key role in Stephen Harper's quest to reshape Canadian political culture.

On September 13^th, Harper told the editorial board of the National Post that he wanted to "make conservatism the natural governing philosophy of our country." However, he was also clear that the Conservatives have to not only pull Canadians towards conservativism but they have to "move towards Canadians if they want to continue to govern the country." Harper's new conservativism places social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage on the backburner while focusing on blending fiscal responsibility and tax cuts with openness to multiculturalism, increased immigration, bilingualism, and accommodation of Québécois nationalism.

Harper is hoping that he will find fertile ground in Saskatchewan for his brand of moderate conservativism and this province will be an interesting test of his ability to edge Canadian political culture to the right. The eight federal ridings that encompass parts of Regina and Saskatoon are a mix of three distinct zones: rural, suburban, and inner cities. A party needs to win two out of these three major geographical zones to win the riding. The Conservatives' promises in this campaign have been carefully crafted to bring rural and suburban Saskatchewan into an electoral alliance that will ensure the Conservative dominance of our province into the future and bring them closer to their goal of becoming Canada's natural governing party.

Rural Saskatchewan has been a Conservative stronghold since the 1993 federal election when the Reform Party swept Saskatchewan's countryside. The Conservatives' promises to reduce taxes on diesel fuel, eliminate the gun registry, embark on senate reform, increase slaughterhouse capacity, and provide choice in wheat marketing are designed to maintain their supremacy in rural Saskatchewan. However, the Conservatives cannot sweep Saskatchewan on the strength of their rural vote alone.

The emerging suburban areas around Regina and Saskatoon are akin to what Michael Valpy, a columnist with the Globe and Mail, calls an "ideological no man's land." These suburban swing voters are mix-and-match of liberal and conservative values and are ultimately most interested in what works and what benefits them. They see themselves as free agents not tied to any particular party and generally have no strong ideological leanings.

The Conservatives have been very savvy at targeting suburban Saskatchewan voters in this election. Suburban voters are concerned about crime and may be pleased with the Conservatives' policies to enact stiffer sentences for criminals. These suburban free agents are attracted to the Conservative promises that give monthly cheques to parents to put towards the daycare option of their choice and their pledge of tax credits for children to take art and music lessons.

There are also certain Conservative promises that are equally attractive to both rural and suburban voters in Saskatchewan. Considering that Saskatchewan's economic boom is largely based on activities that release a large amount of carbon dioxide, rural and suburban voters in Saskatchewan like the Conservatives' approach to climate change which balances environmental concerns with the need to maintain a strong economy. With the recent decline in the price of oil and potash, Saskatchewan rural and suburban voters are sensing that the economic turmoil that has gripped the United States will also affect our current economic boom. Both suburban and rural voters seem to have confidence in the Conservatives' ability to guide the Canadian economy through the troubled waters ahead.

Ultimately, it is this alliance between rural and suburban voters that the Conservatives hope will vault them to a sweep of Saskatchewan. A Conservative sweep of Saskatchewan would prove that a significant part of the province's electorate has embraced Harper's moderate conservativism and has rejected Jack Layton's anti-business message of eliminating corporate tax cuts to increase social spending and Stéphane Dion's plan to combat climate change through using taxation to change consumer behaviour. A Conservative sweep may signal a subtle shift in Saskatchewan political culture that has long been associated with the popularity of social democracy and the electoral dominance of the CCF-NDP. On the other hand, the Conservatives swept Saskatchewan in 1963 and 1965 and these sweeps did not turn out to be indicators of a long-term shift in Saskatchewan's political culture. In the future, it will be interesting to see if a movement to the right in this federal election is a transient phenomenon or a permanent shift in Saskatchewan politics contributing to the reshaping of Canadian political culture in a more conservative mould.

Was Prime Minister Harper too Passive in the Leaders Debate?

Greg Farries — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:18:23 -0600

English debate preview: pressure on Dion and Layton

Harold Jansen — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:36:15 -0600

Tonight is the big show: the English language debate at 9 Eastern/6 Pacific. The dynamics here are a little different than in French. The Conservatives are in a stronger position outside of Quebec, so Harper mainly has to stay out of trouble. I imagine we'll see the relaxed prime-ministerial sweater vest version of Stephen Harper again. All four leaders will be gunning for Harper again. I don't expect we'll see the NDP and Liberals squabble too much over who is the real opponent to Harper. The way the Conservatives are poised to break through in British Columbia means they both have to dump on Harper big time. Harper just has to weather the storm. It's pretty much impossible for an incumbent prime minister to "win" the debate; you win by not losing, which is about the best you can hope for.

Duceppe is pretty much irrelevant tonight, but he's a good debater, so he will likely mostly just irritate Harper. May is a bit of wild card. I thought she was surprisingly good in the French debate. She has nothing to lose really and I suspect she'll be pretty effective, but any gains are marginal in the election.

That leaves Dion and Layton as the leaders who have to perform well. Dion comes off of a decent performance in the French debate, but will obviously be hampered by the fact that English is his second language. He benefits from the fact that many people have written him off without actually listening to him speak. If people listen, they might be surprised to find out that he's actually a pretty bright guy. Layton also needs to do well. Right now, the NDP is in the annoying position of being up in the polls over last election, but not enough to translate into many seats. The debate could help Layton get over the bubble. In past debates, Layton has been a bit too over-eager and comes off a bit rehearsed as he launches into various set pieces; if he can resist those tendencies, he could do all right.

Any guess as to viewership? The Biden-Pallin debate will be tough competition. I know I'm going to have trouble resisting a peak over at American networks to see how it's going. At least I don't have to choose between the debate and The Office. That would be a tough one.

French debate preview: pressure on Harper

Harold Jansen — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:51:31 -0600

In an hour and a half, the French language debate will be starting and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds. This really is the contest between Dion, Duceppe and Harper. Although the NDP is making some gains in Quebec, I don't see Mr. Layton as particularly relevant and Ms. May's struggles in French mean she'll be marginal for much of it.

I'd argue the pressure is really on Harper in this one (unlike the English debate, which I'll write about tomorrow). Harper needs a breakthrough in Quebec to get that elusive majority and he's close. Things were looking good in Quebec, but last week was not a good done for the Conservatives there. Playing the blue collar anti-culture card plays well in western Canada, but not so well in Quebec where culture is infused with nationalism. Westerners love it when the government beats up on young offenders; in Quebec it doesn't play so well. It shows how difficult it is to create and to maintain the Mulroney coalition of Western Canada and Quebec nationalists. It's easier to maintain when you don't open up the constitution, but it's still difficult even if you do not. Harper needs to perform well tonight to shore up the gains the party has made there and to add more seats. Duceppe and especially Dion benefit from diminished expectations. If they exceed those expectations, they will have done well.

During the Leaders Debate, Will the Economy Bore all the Leaders but Harper?

Greg Farries — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 08:08:42 -0600

Stephen Harper: Jiu Jitsu Master?

Royce Koop — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:07:03 -0600

Melanee and lots of other commentators have characterized Harper's recent defence of arts subsidies as an "amateur mistake." I'm not so sure.

I read Rick Perlstein's book Nixonland after Paul Wells' remarkable review of it. Wells is right: Harper today looks alot like Nixon a few decades ago. And one of Perlstein's insights about Nixon was that he was a master of "political jiu jitsu": the art of screwing up in order to tempt your opponents into attacking you on the the terms of your choosing. The result can oftentimes be to solidify loyalty amongst existing supporters. "Let them pounce on your 'mistake,' " Perlstein writes, "then garner pity as you wriggle free by making the enemy look unduly aggressive. Then you inspire a strange sort of protective love among voters whose wounds of resentment grow alongside your performance of being wounded. Your enemies appear to die of their own hand, never of your own. Which makes you stronger." And by laying out irresistible honey pots for his opponents, Nixon was able to maintain control over the debate even as those opponents were certain that he had long since lost it.

Another lesson from Nixon via Perlstein: It doesn't hurt to be hated by people, as long as they're the right people.

Back to Harper attacking Canadian artists. Harper has become a beacon of self-control, but his comments on arts galas yesterday were intemperate, almost a caricature of the old Harper - The Harper that Liberal partisans suspect is lurking behind the blue sweater and will emerge the moment he scores a majority government. "I think when ordinary working people come home," said Harper, "turn on the TV and see a gala of a bunch of people at, you know, a rich gala all subsidized by taxpayers claiming their subsidies aren't high enough, when they know those subsidies have actually gone up – I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people." The provocative comment was sure to provoke responses from the other leaders, and Dion and Layton rushed to take advantage of Harper's "gaffe" by defending Canadian artists and government subsidies.

The question is: Was Harper lashing out or was he engaging in the old political jiu jitsu? Well, that depends on whether you think that defending taxpayer-funded subsidies to the arts is a good selling point to working and middle class Canadians when Harper is out there promising tax cuts. Try to put yourself in the boots of that Canadian worker sitting on the couch some evening drinking beer when Dion comes on the TV screen defending these subsidies. Is he likely to trade a tax cut for more Cronenberg movies? Good grief, Harper even invoked the image of working Canadians sitting on the couch watching TV after a hard day's work.

Furthermore, in rushing to take advantage of Harper's gaffe, Dion - who delivered a jaw-dropping line about how artists have to rent their tuxedos and "beautful gowns" when they attend galas - managed to place himself squarely in the narrative that the Tories have been constructing of him: Elitist and out-of-touch with the needs of regular Canadians.

Maybe I'm wrong and this issue will hurt the Tories. But I think it's more likely that Dion walked into a trap set by Harper. In Dion's defence, the media's emphasis on gaffes, quick rebuttals, and snappy aggressive sound-bites may make it tough to avoid the sorts of traps laid by jiu jitsu masters like Harper.

Harper gets Biten by his Party, while Dion keeps Biting away at his Party

Greg Farries — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:54:17 -0600

The Choice that Saskatchewan voters make will matter...

David McGrane — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:39:06 -0600

This article appears as "Choice by voters in Sask. Will hold significant sway", Saskatoon StarPhoenix, September 18th, 2008, A11.

When the Prime Minister called the federal election, the response of many people in Saskatchewan was undoubtedly: "What! Another election!" With two federal elections and one provincial election during last four years, a little voter fatigue is understandable. Nonetheless, we should not let our weariness allow us to fall prey to old, cynical arguments that we should not bother to vote because ‘all politicians are the same' and ‘your vote doesn't make a difference anyway.' The votes cast in Saskatchewan on October 14th will be very important for the future of province and our country. The choice we make will make a difference.

With the probability that the Conservatives will pick up another 20 seats in Quebec, voters in Saskatchewan should start from the premise that the Conservatives are in striking distance of a majority government. However, even with their extra seats in Quebec, the Conservatives will still need to retain all their seats in English Canada and add a few more to attain what will be a razor-thin majority. Therefore, it is paramount for the Conservatives to sweep Saskatchewan once again. If voters reject the Conservatives in a number of key ridings in Saskatchewan, that could be the difference between a majority and minority government. Indeed, the power is in our hands and the choice that we are about to make is an important one.

If you chose to vote Conservative, you must assume that you are contributing towards the election of a majority Harper government. Putting all of that power into Stephen Harper's hands has a number of significant consequences for Saskatchewan. Harper would continue to spend heavily on the military, aggressively reduce the debt, and enact tax cuts targeted to his potential supporters in Saskatchewan such as small business owners and our province's truckers and farmers who use are heavy users of diesel. He would continue to a ‘go slow' approach on climate change would not throw Saskatchewan's oil and gas industry off balance. However, the Conservative's approach to climate change probably mean that Saskatchewan would continue to have per-capita greenhouse gas emissions that are three times higher than all other Canadian provinces with the exception of Alberta. With his axing of the Kelowna Accord, elimination of the universal daycare scheme, reduction of funding to women's programs, and cuts to arts funding, it hard to see Harper making large investments in social policy in Saskatchewan communities over the course of the next four years. Rather, Harper would probably run a lean government concentrated on maintaining Saskatchewan's current economic strength in the context of an economic slowdown in other parts of North America.

For Saskatchewan voters who reject the Harper agenda, they have three choices: Liberal, NDP, or Green. There is a small chance of a Liberal minority government or the Liberal official opposition to a Conservative minority government so it important to look at the effect of their policies on Saskatchewan. The Liberals have bold carbon tax plan based on the lofty principle that the ‘polluter pays' and that we need to change consumer behaviour to truly combat climate change. Some observers, like Janice MacKinnon and Premier Brad Wall, have argued that Dion's Greenshift could adversely affect Saskatchewan through handicapping our resource-based economy and forcing us to cut the emissions while Eastern Canada gets the lion's share of the personal income tax and corporate tax cuts design to offset the impact of the new carbon taxes. So far, Dion has put all of his eggs into one basket in terms of Saskatchewan. Outside of their environmental plan, the Liberals have yet to announce other policies that would have a significant effect on Saskatchewan and announced policies, like banning semi-automatic assault rifles or investing in the modernization of the fishing industry, that are targeted at other parts of the country.

With Dion's uninspiring leadership during the first couple of weeks of the campaign, even the Conservatives are admitting that Jack Layton is looking like the real leader of the opposition. With the NDP having the best chance to beat the Conservatives in most Saskatchewan ridings, many Saskatchewan voters may be considering voting NDP as the best way to deny Harper a majority government and provide a spirited opposition to Harper in Ottawa. With a large opposition caucus, the NDP would surely attempt to force Harper to pay more attention to social policy issues, like daycare, and call on the government pay attention to consumer issues like high ATM fees and price-gouging at the gas pumps. The NDP, who opposes carbon taxes on consumers, would also push a Conservative government to create a ‘cap and trade system' that would force large corporate polluters to either reduce emissions or pay heavy fines. Certainly, like the Liberals' Greenshift, the NDP's scheme would necessitate considerable adjustment on the part of companies in Saskatchewan's oil patch.

Finally, some Saskatchewan voters may be tempted to vote for the Green Party as a way to send a message to the established parties that are not happy with current state of Canadian politics and that they consider the environment to be the defining political issue of our times. As laudable as these intentions may be, Saskatchewan voters must also face the reality that a vote for the Greens will not elect the Green candidate in their riding and may end up taking away votes from Liberal or NDP candidates therefore allowing the Conservatives to win. Potential Green voters in Saskatchewan must ask themselves if sending a message to Canada's established federal parties is worth the risk of contributing to the election of a Conservative candidate whose party is the least likely to take dramatic action on environmental issues.

On October 14th, voters in Saskatchewan have an important choice to make that will affect their own personal lives and the future of their province and country. We should all analyze the current political situation and seize this power to vote in the way that we believe is best for Saskatchewan and Canada. Your vote matters, use it!

Impressions from Week One

Royce Koop — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:44:04 -0600

First: Elizabeth May deserves congratulations for gaining entry to the leaders' debate. I'm not so sure that she should be so happy over this, however. Many people think that May has a good speaking style. This may be true in some contexts, but I'm not sure if she will perform well in a debate with four other party leaders. Harper, Dion, Layton, and Duceppe all have significant experience in Parliament and the first three have already participated in televised debates. May has no similar experience. "Elizabeth May," argues Kevin Libin, "talks faster than an auctioneer on a caffeine buzz." And we've already seen that her tendency to talk quickly can get her into trouble. As Harold Jansen observed, it may be Harper who benefits from May's inclusion in the debate, as he is left to look prime ministerial as the other four leaders natter away.

In any case, even if May does perform well, so what? Is there a single seat where the Greens can actually win in this campaign? I doubt it. At least if she had been excluded from the debate, May could have justified a poor result. But her participation will raise expectations that cannot possibly be fulfilled, and which may cost May her job.

Second: Harper was mostly engaged last week in moving issues off the table. It's hard to call Harper a Republican-wannabe when he's an Obama-booster. And it's hard to bring up the Afghanistan issue when Harper has committed to pulling out Canadian troops. The Liberals have to find a way to deal with this, because once all the unfavourable issues are slid off the table by Harper, all there is left is the distinction between the strong leader Harper and the puffin pooped on Dion.

Third: I notice that some of the NDP's ads and some hand-held signs are making reference to Layton as a strong leader. What's the angle here?

Fourth: The Liberal Party has won 69% of the national elections held since expansion of the Canadian franchise in 1918. This obviously means that Conservative leaders should never take it easy on the party, even when it seems (as it currently does) that the Liberals are down and out. Harper understands that he needs to stay on the attack, but the party has to find some kind of balance between tenaciousness and the goofy mistakes that we saw last week. The Edmonton Journal gets this:

"...you sense that certain younger, ambitious party types...have been sent conflicting messages by the prime minister's inner
circle. Urged (ordered?) to be tough, partisan and relentless when it
comes to media and the opposition, they're never offered a guidebook on
how far they're meant to go."