Harper: Playing Hardball Credit: Art Threat

In an earlier posting, I had discussed why certain politicians are more successful than others and the influence of Machiavelli on modern politics. Stephen Harper was cited as one of those successful politicians: someone concerned primarily about his own interests and someone willing to do what it takes to succeed. The recent treatment of Helena Guergis for the missteps that she and her husband Rahim Jaffer are alleged to have committed implies self-centered and tough behaviour on the part of Harper. Harper decided to take merely the word of a semi-anonymous source to justify the call for a police and ethics probe and for turfing her from caucus. Although the allegations could be true, clear evidence does not appear to have been presented. Furthermore, at no time does it appear that Harper asked Guergis for her side of the story nor did he inform her about the nature of the allegations. This behaviour seems to bolster earlier descriptions of Harper as a cold opportunist, and someone not particularly fond of women. Many journalists have pointed out that this behaviour allows Harper to remove unequivocally a difficult cabinet minister from Government and from a relatively safe seat that the Tories will probably win again without Guergis.
(more…)

Machiavelli: Tutoring Canadian Politicians. Photo Credit: Din Merican

“Great men are almost always bad men.”
- Lord Acton

Fortune is a woman, and if you wish to conquer her, you must beat and coerce her. And she always smiles upon the
young man, because he commands her with the greatest audacity.

The Prince
By Niccolo Machiavelli

Because the great English historian had written extensively about liberty and federalism, it should not be surprising that Prime Minister Trudeau had read Lord Acton’s work. And because Machiavelli had written his political books in the early part of the 16th century, it should not be surprising that his work contained sexist and offensive passages such as the foregoing one. What might surprise some readers is the fact that Pierre Trudeau and other prominent political and military leaders have consulted Machiavelli’s books throughout the centuries for their sage advice.
(more…)

It takes a special kind of political acumens for a regional Canadian politician to make news headlines both north and south of the border, but Danny Williams has done it.

The Blogosphere across North America lit up a few weeks ago with the news that the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador was heading to an undisclosed American medical facility for a no-further-details-given heart surgery last week. Canadian progressives are chastising Williams for bailing on his at-home medical options while American opponents of healthcare reform get a new scapegoat for why a public option doesn’t work.

Simplistic? Probably. Williams’ people were less than helpful when the news broke, initiating what CBC reporter Janyce McGregor called a “cone of silence” about the matter.

What we do know is that after “weeks of consultation” with doctors, Williams decided to head stateside for the surgery which was apparently unavailable in his home province. This was according to Deputy Premier Kathy Dunderdale, for whom the odious duty of informing the media fell.
(more…)

Photo Credit: media.canada.com

I read with some interest in the Globe and Mail recently of the quashing of a grassroots challenge to a sitting Conservative MP. As reported by Steven Chase, the governing body of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) took over control of Calgary West riding association a few days ago in order to do damage control. What was the damage you ask? The riding association was going to ask its members if it wanted to challenge sitting MP Rob Anders’ appointment as a candidate for the next election. Back in the spring of 2009 the national body of the CPC ruled that they would not allow any challenges to be put forth against any of its sitting MPs, stifling any dissent in the process. Upset by this tacit betrayal of classic Reform dogma, the Calgary West riding was on a path to potentially run a candidate nomination process against Mr Anders. No sooner it seems was this considered than the high ups in the CPC swooped down from their headquarters and stopped the riding association dead in its tracks.  When asked about what appears to be internal strife within the party, national council president John Walsh commented “I am not interested in commenting on internal party matters.” Case closed.
(more…)

Photo Credit: blog.nz-online.de

Am I the only Canadian that wishes Barack Obama could be my leader? Politics aside, the man can speak. When he gives a speech, people listen. When Stephen Harper gives a speech, people fall asleep, or at least I do. From the moment Obama took office and said that he would “unclench his fist and extend an open hand,” I was hooked on the man and stopped really listening to whatever it is Stephen Harper says. I paid a hell of a lot more attention to Obama’s most recent State of the Union address than I did to Harpers speech at the World Economic Forum. As I said earlier, I fall asleep staring at his grey head of hair.
(more…)

Photo Credit: Hamilton Spectator

The PM, proving to be quite uncreative when it comes to governance, has again suspended parliament. As The Economist put it (7 Jan 2010), “Stephen Harper is counting on Canadians’ complacency as he rewrites the rules of his country’s politics to weaken legislative scrutiny.” But the “gathering storm of media criticism” they forecasted is fading from the horizon, as Harper surely assumed. The PM is undoubtedly counting on (or planning) something else to fill up screens over the next months (Olympics, more shimmering stimulus projects, etc.). It is no coincidence that the he will drop the budget the day after parliament reconvenes on 3 March, sure to be filled with so many exciting goodies that we’ll go into a fiscal sugar coma, and the prorogation will hardly be a memory.
(more…)

A prorogation rally on Parliament Hill. Photo Credit: Sean Kilpatrick, CP

In all the excitement about prorogation it has become fairly obvious that the vast majority of the Canadian public—present company included—don’t know much about what it actually is. Normally, I use this space to share my opinion, but this time I will preface it with something a little less subjective. Today I would like to present a brief prorogation primer, with a few personal opinions tossed in for good measure.

The fine folks at the Table Research Branch of the House of Commons maintain the House of Commons Compendium, an excellent source of information on how the House and its committees work. If you visit their web page discussing the Parliamentary Cycle, you will find this simple introduction:

“A Parliament is summoned following a general election and continues to exist until it is dissolved (ended) by a proclamation of the Governor General at the request of the Prime Minister. This is followed by another general election. The Constitution sets the maximum lifespan of a Parliament at five years; however, recent changes to the Canada Elections Act provide for fixed date elections every four years.

Each Parliament is made up of one or more sessions, each consisting of a number of separate sittings (meetings), separated by periods of adjournment. Each session, except the final one, ends when Parliament is prorogued by the Governor General. The final session ends with the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a general election.”

So you see, dear readers, prorogation is not the rare beast that some people believe it to be. It is constitutionally valid and is not morally dubious in and of itself. In fact, Parliament has been prorogued over 100 times. Still though, we are unfamiliar with it and because of that, it makes us a bit edgy. In a perfect world, all Canadians would take a mandatory high school civics class – anything the school system ever taught me about our government is long gone. Yes, the topic can be dry, but so is algebra and they made us learn that too.
(more…)

Depends on the tune - Photo Credit: Global News

HCBAX9NPSJB8 It is a truism that the Conservative’s base votes. When it comes to the nitty gritty hardship of going all the way to that local community building and making an X, the core supporters of said party are never apathetic (except arguably about what the Conservatives are doing).

The base on the Left? What base on the left? There may be a few who remember the union-championing roots of the NDP and never sway from supporting said party. There are certainly some environmental activists who swear to vote Green all Green and nothing but Green so help them Mother Earth. What is the Liberal core, and really how can either of the other two (the Greens are actually rather right when it comes to social policy but we’ll play the perception here) ever expect to match the one recognized haven for the socially conservative vote, especially given that despite enacted policy the Conservative Party also manages to cling to the illusion of fiscal conservativism?
(more…)

Shuffle as you will, we know the joker is still on top.
Photo Credit: Bartmaha

Firstly let us recall that the small government-touting Conservatives have gone from a twenty-seven member cabinet, a “smaller Cabinet and more streamlined Cabinet structure… designed for work—not for show” (Stephen Harper), to their current thirty-eight member (awkward and showy?) cabinet.

Secondly, let us take a look at the January nineteenth’s move of Lisa Raitt from her position as Minister of Natural Resources.

Taking a controversial minister away from the position of being in charge of our nuclear plants seems like a no-brainer, especially when she finds medical isotope shortages to be “sexy”.

Speaking of no-brainers; let’s make her the … drum roll please … Labour Minister. Real smart. Please someone explain why she is still a minister at all?
(more…)

Conservative Policy Discussion

I am going to steer away from prorogation for a moment here and bring up some old but interesting points. Perhaps the following can be seen as being applicable to that issue, I leave that to the reader.

Populism=Anti-intellectualism.

I do not intend to engage in a debate about proper criminal justice policy. I intend to prove that Stephen Harper and his Conservatives adopt a position of Anti-intellectualism.

Anti-intellectualism is an ignorant position. Either the Conservative leaders are ignorant or they intentionally champion ignorance. We’ll assume that the Conservative Party knows anti-intellectualism is ignorant. The only logical explanation for a political party’s intentional championing of ignorant policy is to garner votes. The Conservative party champions ignorant policy to garner votes. The Conservative Party banks on voters’ ignorance.
(more…)