"Stephen Harper stands test of time"
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)

- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
"Stephen Harper stands test of time"
Harper is now Canada's longest-ever serving Prime Minister in a minority government.
In the fall of 2008, Harper said Canada would be one of the first ones out of the recession, and would suffer the least. Any economic stat viewed today proves he was correct. The US unemployment rate and trade deficits are still catastrophic. In the meantime, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Britain, and Iceland have seen their entire countries economies collapse. We, however, are on the upswing, as predicted.
Ignatieff meanwhile, would have run us into the ground.
Stephen Harper stands test of time
JOHN IBBITSON
Globe and Mail Update
It’s easy to forget Stephen Harper’s electoral achievement. He is almost certain to become one of Canada’s longest-serving prime ministers.
If the Conservatives introduce a budget in the first week of March, are defeated on it, lose the subsequent election and depart office after a two-week transition, then Mr. Harper will have run the country for five years and two months. That puts him past: Alexander Mackenzie, John Abbott, John Thompson, Mackenzie Bowell, Charles Tupper, Arthur Meighen, Richard Bennett (though it could be close), Lester Pearson (making Mr. Harper the longest-serving prime minister to have led only minority governments), Joe Clark, John Turner, Kim Campbell and Paul Martin.
If he wins that election, then he’ll likely pass John Diefenbaker.
But this week revealed a new and intriguing possibility: that this minority government will survive into autumn 2011 at least. If Mr. Harper wins that election, he’ll have a shot at eclipsing Louis St. Laurent and Brian Mulroney.
Certainly, the Conservatives were doing everything in their power, as Parliament rose for its winter recess, to persuade voters they had no intention of provoking an election. House Leader John Baird kept going on about how productive Parliament had been this sitting. Conservatives in corridors swore on Macdonald’s grave that the budget would not be rigged to force the government’s defeat. One senior Tory believed it to be a virtual certainty that one of the opposition parties would support that budget, especially given the Liberals’ chronically weak standing in polls. Mr. Harper appears genuinely willing to carry on governing, rather than risk everything on a election in which the most likely outcome is status quo ante.
In which case, all this febrile speculation about a spring election could be wasted verbiage, as if that were anything new.
Mr. Baird’s claim that this was a productive session is disputable. As Le Devoir observed this week, almost half the bills the Conservatives introduced this year were rehashes of legislation that died when Mr. Harper had Parliament prorogued last December. Only 11 bills made it through the House, which is why Le Devoir concluded that “2010 was a total waste on the legislative front.”
That’s not entirely fair, for two reasons. First, the federal government is all about its annual budget, which in 2010 focused on sustaining the economic recovery through stimulus spending.
Second, Parliament passed refugee-law reforms that should see claimants processed more quickly, reducing the scandalous numbers of people who languish in limbo and making Canada potentially less desirable as a haven for refugee claimants who are really just economic migrants looking to jump the queue. It was one of the biggest legislative achievements since Mr. Harper became prime minister.
And some law-and-order legislation got passed, though that will matter to you only if you end up doing hard time .
Of course, many of this government’s biggest agenda items were non-legislative, such as the G8 and G20 summits and the decision to go with the F-35 fighter aircraft to replace the CF-18s.
But whether this has been a productive government or not will ultimately be up to voters to decide. What this week made increasingly uncertain is when that decision will take place.
In the fall of 2008, Harper said Canada would be one of the first ones out of the recession, and would suffer the least. Any economic stat viewed today proves he was correct. The US unemployment rate and trade deficits are still catastrophic. In the meantime, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Britain, and Iceland have seen their entire countries economies collapse. We, however, are on the upswing, as predicted.
Ignatieff meanwhile, would have run us into the ground.
Stephen Harper stands test of time
JOHN IBBITSON
Globe and Mail Update
It’s easy to forget Stephen Harper’s electoral achievement. He is almost certain to become one of Canada’s longest-serving prime ministers.
If the Conservatives introduce a budget in the first week of March, are defeated on it, lose the subsequent election and depart office after a two-week transition, then Mr. Harper will have run the country for five years and two months. That puts him past: Alexander Mackenzie, John Abbott, John Thompson, Mackenzie Bowell, Charles Tupper, Arthur Meighen, Richard Bennett (though it could be close), Lester Pearson (making Mr. Harper the longest-serving prime minister to have led only minority governments), Joe Clark, John Turner, Kim Campbell and Paul Martin.
If he wins that election, then he’ll likely pass John Diefenbaker.
But this week revealed a new and intriguing possibility: that this minority government will survive into autumn 2011 at least. If Mr. Harper wins that election, he’ll have a shot at eclipsing Louis St. Laurent and Brian Mulroney.
Certainly, the Conservatives were doing everything in their power, as Parliament rose for its winter recess, to persuade voters they had no intention of provoking an election. House Leader John Baird kept going on about how productive Parliament had been this sitting. Conservatives in corridors swore on Macdonald’s grave that the budget would not be rigged to force the government’s defeat. One senior Tory believed it to be a virtual certainty that one of the opposition parties would support that budget, especially given the Liberals’ chronically weak standing in polls. Mr. Harper appears genuinely willing to carry on governing, rather than risk everything on a election in which the most likely outcome is status quo ante.
In which case, all this febrile speculation about a spring election could be wasted verbiage, as if that were anything new.
Mr. Baird’s claim that this was a productive session is disputable. As Le Devoir observed this week, almost half the bills the Conservatives introduced this year were rehashes of legislation that died when Mr. Harper had Parliament prorogued last December. Only 11 bills made it through the House, which is why Le Devoir concluded that “2010 was a total waste on the legislative front.”
That’s not entirely fair, for two reasons. First, the federal government is all about its annual budget, which in 2010 focused on sustaining the economic recovery through stimulus spending.
Second, Parliament passed refugee-law reforms that should see claimants processed more quickly, reducing the scandalous numbers of people who languish in limbo and making Canada potentially less desirable as a haven for refugee claimants who are really just economic migrants looking to jump the queue. It was one of the biggest legislative achievements since Mr. Harper became prime minister.
And some law-and-order legislation got passed, though that will matter to you only if you end up doing hard time .
Of course, many of this government’s biggest agenda items were non-legislative, such as the G8 and G20 summits and the decision to go with the F-35 fighter aircraft to replace the CF-18s.
But whether this has been a productive government or not will ultimately be up to voters to decide. What this week made increasingly uncertain is when that decision will take place.
-
niss
- Top Poster

- Posts: 6745
- Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: I'm a CPL trapped in a PPL's Body.
- Contact:
Re: "Stephen Harper stands test of time"
He may be spending it wisely but that is still money Paul Martin left for him.
She’s built like a Steakhouse, but she handles like a Bistro.
Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
Re: "Stephen Harper stands test of time"
Wow. And this coming from the Globe.
-
the_professor
- Rank (9)

- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm
Re: "Stephen Harper stands test of time"
What is? The facts in terms of timeline, plus some musing about possible courses of action next year? What's your point?Cam wrote:Wow. And this coming from the Globe.
-
Changes in Latitudes
- Rank 10

- Posts: 2396
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:47 am
- Location: The weather is here, I wish you were beautiful.
Re: "Stephen Harper stands test of time"
He's the cruise relief pilot of Prime Ministers. He was given a country on auto-pilot and didn't touch any of the buttons. The good news is that he hasn't done much, the bad news is...he hasn't done much.
Re: "Stephen Harper stands test of time"
Hard to do too much with a minority gov.
Plus I think he's a much better masthead/public figure than any of the previous dollards we've had as PMs. As much as I liked chretien on a political level.. the rest of the world figured we were a bunch of drunken french retards.. (no offence to the drunks or the retards..)
Plus I think he's a much better masthead/public figure than any of the previous dollards we've had as PMs. As much as I liked chretien on a political level.. the rest of the world figured we were a bunch of drunken french retards.. (no offence to the drunks or the retards..)
Re: "Stephen Harper stands test of time"
Is that really a bad thing? Canada has frighteningly few checks and balances. If you happen to be the leader of a political party which wins a majority in a federal election in Canada, you have powers envied by banana republic dictators, for the next 5 years.Hard to do too much with a minority gov
In Canada, an MP cannot vote against his party, even if it's what his constituents desire. No caucus for you.
The Senate is a joke. It's a dumping ground for party hacks, faithful and bagmen, of every denomination. Whatever PM happens to be in power, fills it with partisan yes-men. Just abolish it already, ok?
With this background, is a minority government really a bad thing? Personally, I don't believe that government leads a country to greatness (snort). A country succeeds or fails on the merits of it's citizenry, often despite an unhelpful government. Government is a parasite, like a 50 pound spare tire around the waist of a former olympic sprinter, which panics and throws the taxpayer's money at problems. The less of that, the better, IMHO.
-
. ._
- Top Poster

- Posts: 7374
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
- Contact:
Re: "Stephen Harper stands test of time"
Harper's a decent poster boy for the businessmen, but after he wins the next election, and Iggy loses, stay tuned for...
GORDON CAMPBELL, PM!!!!
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Poli ... ilderberg/
I called it first!
-istp
GORDON CAMPBELL, PM!!!!
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Poli ... ilderberg/
I called it first!
-istp
Re: "Stephen Harper stands test of time"
Actually, he has turned off some of the instruments and information screens, because he doesn't think that extra information is particularly useful, and it will save power. The plane seems to fly okay with it, for the time being.Changes in Latitudes wrote:He's the cruise relief pilot of Prime Ministers. He was given a country on auto-pilot and didn't touch any of the buttons. The good news is that he hasn't done much, the bad news is...he hasn't done much.
He also converted a couple of the washrooms into holding cells, and wants to get rid of an extra flight attendant or two. Easier to lock you up when you ask for a third drink, rather than have someone counsel you on the dangers of inebriation and disruptive behaviour.
He stopped serving drinking water and pulled back on the humidification of the air. He is using the extra water for the fuel injection system. The comfort and health of the passengers is not as important as the economic operation of the aircraft.
All subtle, to be sure, and the plane still flys pretty well, and the people will probably get somewhere. A little more grouchy and discomfited than need be, perhaps, but to who will it matter.
...
Re: "Stephen Harper stands test of time"
flies, not flysthe plane still flys pretty well
whom, not who.to who will it matter
If you're going to take the left-wing pseudo-intellectual morally superior high ground of the intelligentsia, you should work a bit on improving your spelling and grammar, to provide a more convincing act.
Some tips for the lefties:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2000106_become- ... ctual.html
Re: "Stephen Harper stands test of time"
Thanks Hedley.. I almost fell out of my damn chairHedley wrote:flies, not flysthe plane still flys pretty well
whom, not who.to who will it matter
If you're going to take the left-wing pseudo-intellectual morally superior high ground of the intelligentsia, you should work a bit on improving your spelling and grammar, to provide a more convincing act.
Some tips for the lefties:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2000106_become- ... ctual.html
Re: "Stephen Harper stands test of time"
Now go watch the two Letterman videos for the full effect 
-
. ._
- Top Poster

- Posts: 7374
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
- Contact:
Re: "Stephen Harper stands test of time"
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politi ... voy-londonistp wrote:Harper's a decent poster boy for the businessmen, but after he wins the next election, and Iggy loses, stay tuned for...
GORDON CAMPBELL, PM!!!!
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Poli ... ilderberg/
I called it first!
-istp
Making contacts for the big run?
I'm still calling that Bilderberger as the next PM! (Fellow Bilderberger Mansbridge is on his side...)


