- Reaction score
- 5,545
- Points
- 1,260
Lawrence Martin, whose column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, would be right IF the economic turnaround, which many (most?) economists predict for the 2nd/3rd quarter of 2009 in Canada, fails to materialize:
------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090101.wcomartin0102/BNStory/specialComment/home
The smart money says Harper exits this year
If he does, he'll join a tiny club of Tory achievers who've gone out a winner, leaving the party in a united, salutary state
LAWRENCE MARTIN
From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 1, 2009 at 10:35 PM EST
To look at the history of the Conservative Party is to find few success stories — leaders who've gone out a winner, leaving the party in a united, salutary state.
Among the chief reasons we could see Stephen Harper take his leave this year is that, if he does, he'll join that tiny club of achievers. If he doesn't, he risks a denouement common to predecessors — the big tumble into the Tory trash can.
After unifying the party with Peter MacKay in 2003, Mr. Harper has appreciably upped the Conservatives' standing in three successive elections. Despite all the animosity he's generated, he has them leading in the polls, unified and bankrolled.
By anyone's standards, that is political success. Political success, of course, doesn't necessarily equate with successful governance. Other criteria, less favourable to Mr. Harper, must be weighed before any such determination can be rendered.
But as has been noted many times, all that seems to count with this leader — it being one of his prevailing infirmities — is political vindication. That being the case, he could step away contentedly this year and enjoy his soda pop.
Several other factors appear to be steering him toward the exit. If he has a conservative agenda to implement, he probably realizes the hour has passed. The pendulum, as seen in the United States and elsewhere, is swinging to the other side. To govern as a conservative in the next few years would likely require more turning away from conservative ideals, as he just did in the case of an elected Senate and the running-up of deficits. If continued governance means doing the opposite of what you stand for, who needs it?
Leaders wishing to stick around are often driven by one big goal not yet achieved. This incrementalist prime minister doesn't appear to have one. If he did, circumstances would likely prohibit its deliverance.
No one wants to govern in a deep recession. The sudden ebbing of the age of abundance is another reason he's likely considering his options. He may recall the early 1990s and what that recession did to Brian Mulroney's government and Bob Rae's in Ontario. He may recall the 1930s and R.B. Bennett.
A fourth reason for not wanting to stay to fight a fourth election is that he no longer has a punching bag for an opposition leader. A more stalwart Liberal captain, in combination with the economic tailspin, means the odds against Mr. Harper winning a majority are stacked high.
What has strongly contributed to his political success over the past many years has been a remarkable streak of good fortune. The quick collapse of Stockwell Day opened the Alliance Party leadership to him. Peter MacKay's backdoor dealings with David Orchard then paved the path to the Conservative Party crown. No strong opponents came forward. Then Mr. Harper was given the gift of the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery inquiry; then came the RCMP commissioner's calling of an investigation into the Grits in the middle of an election; then came Stéphane Dion.
Mr. Harper is a leader who has sucked the well of good fortune dry. He should bear it in mind. The gods owe him nothing more. Which is reason No.5 for not plowing forward.
Mr. Harper has some time to work with. Though not well liked by his conservative legions, he is feared. No one, even after his government's brush with death over his boneheaded economic statement, dares challenge him publicly.
There is a chance that, given his current lead in the polls owing to public anger with the coalition option, he may see an opportunity and push for an election in the next few months. That would be a hazardous roll of the dice. More likely, he will get his budget passed by the Liberals, who need time to showcase their new leader and then move on into the summer. At that time, Michael Ignatieff will make his decision on whether to seek another mandate or call for a leadership convention.
Mr. Harper will then have served seven years as a party leader and close to four as Prime Minister. Given his enjoyment of power, his first wish would be for more of it. But he will assess the odds and, most likely, realize that the probability of his overcoming the ominous portents and enhancing his standing in his party and the country are hardly high.
As well, he may look at history, at the many leaders before him who didn't know when to leave, who sought to defy the odds. If he does, he'll see they've never stopped regretting it.
--------------------
I think Martin’s big problem is that he fails to understand Harper’s hidden agenda™ which has nothing at all to do with importing the dreaded Bush regime but, rather, is all about reshaping the Canadian political landscape so that the Conservatives have a fim grip on the moderate centre – all of the moderate centre – leaving the Greens, Liberals, NDP to fight over the centre-left and left wings.
I think Harper is less afraid of the recession that many might think. If his private and public sector advisors are telling him what they are saying in the media then he probably believes that Canada will lead the world out of recession – with renewed growth starting in summer 2009. Renewed growth brings renewed optimism and it is a good time for an election.
I also think that Iggy is a less formidable leader than Martin hopes. The divisions within the Liberal Party are deep and Harper is moving the Conservatives into Ignatieff’s natural political territory – the Liberal’s right wing/the general moderate centre. Most Canadians are going find it more and more difficult to see the big difference between Harper and Ignatieff; Canadians on the Liberal left will be mightily discomfited because they will see Iggy as a selling out their values.
My guess is that Harper fights and wins another election in summer 2009. (The last summer general election was on 28 Jun 2004 (Paul Martin won a minority), the one before that was 4 Sep 84 (Brian Mulroney won a majority) – Jean Chrétien won a majority in a late spring (2 Jun) election in 1997 – fall elections are not mandatory.) That being the case I suspect Duceppe, Layton and perhaps even Ignatieff to go before he does.
------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090101.wcomartin0102/BNStory/specialComment/home
The smart money says Harper exits this year
If he does, he'll join a tiny club of Tory achievers who've gone out a winner, leaving the party in a united, salutary state
LAWRENCE MARTIN
From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 1, 2009 at 10:35 PM EST
To look at the history of the Conservative Party is to find few success stories — leaders who've gone out a winner, leaving the party in a united, salutary state.
Among the chief reasons we could see Stephen Harper take his leave this year is that, if he does, he'll join that tiny club of achievers. If he doesn't, he risks a denouement common to predecessors — the big tumble into the Tory trash can.
After unifying the party with Peter MacKay in 2003, Mr. Harper has appreciably upped the Conservatives' standing in three successive elections. Despite all the animosity he's generated, he has them leading in the polls, unified and bankrolled.
By anyone's standards, that is political success. Political success, of course, doesn't necessarily equate with successful governance. Other criteria, less favourable to Mr. Harper, must be weighed before any such determination can be rendered.
But as has been noted many times, all that seems to count with this leader — it being one of his prevailing infirmities — is political vindication. That being the case, he could step away contentedly this year and enjoy his soda pop.
Several other factors appear to be steering him toward the exit. If he has a conservative agenda to implement, he probably realizes the hour has passed. The pendulum, as seen in the United States and elsewhere, is swinging to the other side. To govern as a conservative in the next few years would likely require more turning away from conservative ideals, as he just did in the case of an elected Senate and the running-up of deficits. If continued governance means doing the opposite of what you stand for, who needs it?
Leaders wishing to stick around are often driven by one big goal not yet achieved. This incrementalist prime minister doesn't appear to have one. If he did, circumstances would likely prohibit its deliverance.
No one wants to govern in a deep recession. The sudden ebbing of the age of abundance is another reason he's likely considering his options. He may recall the early 1990s and what that recession did to Brian Mulroney's government and Bob Rae's in Ontario. He may recall the 1930s and R.B. Bennett.
A fourth reason for not wanting to stay to fight a fourth election is that he no longer has a punching bag for an opposition leader. A more stalwart Liberal captain, in combination with the economic tailspin, means the odds against Mr. Harper winning a majority are stacked high.
What has strongly contributed to his political success over the past many years has been a remarkable streak of good fortune. The quick collapse of Stockwell Day opened the Alliance Party leadership to him. Peter MacKay's backdoor dealings with David Orchard then paved the path to the Conservative Party crown. No strong opponents came forward. Then Mr. Harper was given the gift of the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery inquiry; then came the RCMP commissioner's calling of an investigation into the Grits in the middle of an election; then came Stéphane Dion.
Mr. Harper is a leader who has sucked the well of good fortune dry. He should bear it in mind. The gods owe him nothing more. Which is reason No.5 for not plowing forward.
Mr. Harper has some time to work with. Though not well liked by his conservative legions, he is feared. No one, even after his government's brush with death over his boneheaded economic statement, dares challenge him publicly.
There is a chance that, given his current lead in the polls owing to public anger with the coalition option, he may see an opportunity and push for an election in the next few months. That would be a hazardous roll of the dice. More likely, he will get his budget passed by the Liberals, who need time to showcase their new leader and then move on into the summer. At that time, Michael Ignatieff will make his decision on whether to seek another mandate or call for a leadership convention.
Mr. Harper will then have served seven years as a party leader and close to four as Prime Minister. Given his enjoyment of power, his first wish would be for more of it. But he will assess the odds and, most likely, realize that the probability of his overcoming the ominous portents and enhancing his standing in his party and the country are hardly high.
As well, he may look at history, at the many leaders before him who didn't know when to leave, who sought to defy the odds. If he does, he'll see they've never stopped regretting it.
--------------------
I think Martin’s big problem is that he fails to understand Harper’s hidden agenda™ which has nothing at all to do with importing the dreaded Bush regime but, rather, is all about reshaping the Canadian political landscape so that the Conservatives have a fim grip on the moderate centre – all of the moderate centre – leaving the Greens, Liberals, NDP to fight over the centre-left and left wings.
I think Harper is less afraid of the recession that many might think. If his private and public sector advisors are telling him what they are saying in the media then he probably believes that Canada will lead the world out of recession – with renewed growth starting in summer 2009. Renewed growth brings renewed optimism and it is a good time for an election.
I also think that Iggy is a less formidable leader than Martin hopes. The divisions within the Liberal Party are deep and Harper is moving the Conservatives into Ignatieff’s natural political territory – the Liberal’s right wing/the general moderate centre. Most Canadians are going find it more and more difficult to see the big difference between Harper and Ignatieff; Canadians on the Liberal left will be mightily discomfited because they will see Iggy as a selling out their values.
My guess is that Harper fights and wins another election in summer 2009. (The last summer general election was on 28 Jun 2004 (Paul Martin won a minority), the one before that was 4 Sep 84 (Brian Mulroney won a majority) – Jean Chrétien won a majority in a late spring (2 Jun) election in 1997 – fall elections are not mandatory.) That being the case I suspect Duceppe, Layton and perhaps even Ignatieff to go before he does.