More positive reviews for Stephen Harper
The honeymoon continues:
None of the people co-ordinating Stephen Harper's transition to prime minister were involved in his election campaign, and none will be involved in running or lobbying his government.
Harper's choice of transition team suggests the Conservative leader has learned from Paul Martin's example that it's a big mistake to rely on the same group of ultra-partisan advisers to run both campaigns and government, blurring the line between political and public interest.
In setting up his government, Harper appears to have recognized the value of independent advice from experienced people who have no personal stake in how the government is structured or staffed.
Team A gets Stephen Harper elected.
Team B, which has none of the baggage that Team A is carrying in the aftermath of a nasty election campaign (and all election campaigns get nasty at some point), looks to build up Team C.
Team C, made up of people not from Team A or Team B, but selected on merit, help run the government.
We could talk about Team D, but they remain essentially the same before, during, and after, the election, and are unaffected by the staffing process. They just keep blogging away.
But back to Teams A, B, and C. How does this compare with the Liberal Party model under Paul Martin?
By contrast, Martin relied heavily on a tight-knit inner circle of advisers for both political and governmental advice. His 2003 15-member transition team consisted of a number of lobbyists, including team head Michael Robinson, as well as a host of people who wound up as senior staffers in his Prime Minister's Office.
Also on board was David Herle, a communications consultant who headed Martin's leadership and subsequent election campaigns while simultaneously under contract to various government departments.
Martin has been heavily criticized, even by fellow Liberals, for blurring the line between his political objectives and the public interest. Many Liberals complain that the inner circle who helped him wrest the leadership from Jean Chretien did not have the temperament or skills to run the government.
Remember how Paul Martin kept insisting that the Sponsorship Scandal, and the kickback scheme at its centre, in which government contract money made its way in the Liberal Party bank account, the ultimate blurring of public interest and party interest, was Jean Chretien's problem, and how Martin and his government were completely exonerated?
Maybe they were exonerated, but they were on the very next train heading down the same track to exactly the same terrible crash. Thankfully, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have taken the first step to putting Canada on a different track.
If the Harper government is successful, and I think it will be, then the administration model Harper is using is likely to become the gold standard against which future governments are measured.
Look at that. Not even sworn in yet, and already Stephen Harper has a better legacy than Paul Martin.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Having a legacy greater than Martin is not exactly a hard task, but to do it in a few short days is amazing.
Truly the difference in character and integrity between these two men is like night and day. What bothers me is that half the country doesn't give a damn about integrity and character if it means taking their government handouts and baby killing rights away.
Posted by: St. John at January 28, 2006 10:27 AM
I keep thinking about how Stephen Harper is Prime Minister and i can't stop smiling.
Paul Who?
Finally an honest and competent leader for this country, and not a moment too soon either.
Posted by: Brad in Barrhead at January 28, 2006 10:56 AM
Yep, those old standards of rape, pillage and plunder are just three steps from reality for every "civilization".
The perfect illustration was the aftermath in New Orleans; where peace officers left their posts, the shooting and looting started and you thought it was a war zone.
By charting out PM Paul Martin's "we are going to do government differently" shibboleth, and making it a reality, PM Stephen Harper provides a striking contrast in methodology.
Good on him!!
Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at January 28, 2006 10:59 AM
St. John,
Integrity is about honesty and doing the right thing, only because it is the right thing to do. People like you are the reason half the electorate doesn't care about integrity. You scare them when you wrap every issue around abortion.
More than half the electorate is not voting against a Conservative government because of abortion. They simply have different ideas on how this country should be run. You are right when you suggest a sense of entitlement to government handouts is important to many, as well as abortion. I would suggest more people voted for the other parties to stop one issue zealots such as yourself than voted for offerings by the other parties.
Posted by: Proud K-W Conservative at January 28, 2006 10:59 AM
Whoa! K-W, that'd be a friendly-fire incident, I think. I believe that St John was trying to make the point that there is a large coningent of single-issue and gimmegimmegimme voters who are willing to put up with the corruption and scum if they get what they want for themselves, and damn the rest of us. "Government handouts and baby killing rights" are just the talking pints.
We conservatives are big-picture people. And enough people saw the forest despite the trees in this election to vote for some integrity. Let's not fight amonst ourselves. That's a present for the Liberals that I don't want to give them.
(A fellow proud K-W Conservative)
Posted by: whiteotter at January 28, 2006 11:23 AM
"the administration model Harper is using is likely to become the gold standard against which future governments are measured."
Brings a tear of joy to me eye.
Posted by: Ovni at January 28, 2006 12:13 PM
I think whiteotter nailed it.
Look to the south in 1998.
Bill Clinton was clearly caught in adultry and perjury, and he was impeached.
Here is the point.
However, every single Democrat in the senate voted against the impeachment, despite the facts of obvious guilt. For the sake of advancing the liberal agenda that Bill brought forth, the Democrats closed their eyes to Bill's grand jury testimony and to that blue dress.
Despite the fact that Bill is still worshipped by the MSM, in every election since, in the House and Senate, have seen less and less Democrats in each.
And it would seem that some Canadians were willing to close there eyes to obvious Liberal corruption to see that the small "l" liberal agenda (abortion)would keep going forth.
One Question. If the liberals are so convinced that Canadians are on their side in the abortion issue, why do they appear to fear re-examination or a vote on this?
They should firmly announce, "Bring it on, let's settle this now, once and for all. National debate, then totally free vote. We will then silencle these right-wing conservatives for good!"
Posted by: Pete at January 28, 2006 12:20 PM
None of the people co-ordinating Stephen Harper's transition to prime minister were involved in...
It's a character flaw of mine not to let grammatical errors go.
None... was
Posted by: Miles at January 28, 2006 12:51 PM
All those voters who are afraid of the "right-wing" agenda are going to be pleasantly surprised, and will vote the Conservatives back in for majority in the second term. Then we'll tackle abortion and a woman's right to vote... kidding.
Posted by: Fergs at January 28, 2006 01:54 PM
Re: grammar
None of the people...WERE involved (implied plurality)
vs.
Not one of the people...WAS involved
Posted by: Allie at January 28, 2006 05:38 PM
This 'exoneration' of Paul Martin always bothered me.
They couldn't find any evidence that he was involved in the scandal, but common sense would dictate that as a senior member of the government, he must have know - if not the details - at least the general thrust of the program.
Posted by: Curtis at January 28, 2006 06:16 PM
I'm with St. John, whiteotter, Pete ... and Allie!
Posted by: Chris from Victoria, BC at January 28, 2006 06:17 PM
It looks as though Stephen Harper is going to do all he can to distinguish himself from the departing PMPM, and he started by holding his first press conference, standing up in the lobby of the House of Commons Thursday afternoon, rather than the traditional sit down, fire side chat in the media room. He accomplished two objectives by doing this, he set his own pace and showcased the take-charge approach he intends to use in the House of Commons. I think we can expect to see a lot more of these departures from the Paul Martin style of governing, it will be very refreshing.
Posted by: Platty at January 28, 2006 06:32 PM
Pete, the liberals fear open examination of the abortion issue for two reasons:
1- It would expose how liberals are only interested in pushing their own agenda and truly disinterested in what the average citizen has to say.
2- Someone might discover the ironic fact that liberals, who supposedly believe in the rights of society as a whole, are lobbying for individual rights (ie: a woman's right to choose) instead. Since the belief in individual rights and freedoms is normally a conservative platform, it would expose the liberals as the hypocrites they are.
Posted by: Mac at January 28, 2006 10:30 PM
I hope they do away with 'media scrums' also.
1) It looks bad - Looks like minister of whatever is getting mugged in the hall... which is pretty much whats happening...
2) Its too informal. Get a inexperienced guy (or girl) under the lights without a script - there are going to be slip ups - and the media just loves to chase down conservatives over their slip ups. It would easily derail the governments message for a day - or a week. This is the trial government - the less time spent putting out fires the better.
3) Security. Some moonbat slips in with a cream pie - or a canister of pepper spray - could really hurt the governments image - not to mention a MP. The loony toon that attack Ralph Klein got a lot of sympathy when Ralph insisted on pressing assault charges - people viewed it as an over reaction to a prank. (also the looney toon got a nothing sentence - to be served on weekends - no less)
Posted by: Curtis at January 28, 2006 10:43 PM
Harper has a better legacy already than does Martin and hes not even the PM yet.
Gota love it.
Horny Toad
Posted by: Horny Toad at January 29, 2006 12:57 AM
Hans: "Yep, those old standards of rape, pillage and plunder are just three steps from reality for every "civilization". The perfect illustration was the aftermath in New Orleans..."
Well I beg to differ. Notice where the "war zone" happened, in the deep south, in the impovershed area under Democrat control, with a Democrat mayor.
Remember the great Black Out in '94 in the NorthEast. New York, the city and stuff horror and sci-fi films are made of had more or less a block party. IN fact I believe the cops said it was one of their quietest nights.
Contrast that to Liberal Toronto and they had looting and crimes.
Which bring to memory here in Calgary with the Y2K scare - we had water, food, and kerosine ready to help the neighbourhood, and so did our neighbours. We had block captains who would work with the police and so on. No guns...
Must be something about society and its morals.
cheers
tom
Posted by: tomax at January 29, 2006 06:24 PM
What about "team 'E'"...no relation to anyone in government ...a totally disinterested 3rd party tasked with digging up all the Librano skeletons of the past 13 years and indicting a librano a day with capital crimes?
Gosh I like the ring of that...."the E team"...E for expose' of Librano corruption networks.
Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at January 29, 2006 07:25 PM
On Media Scrums -
I firmly believe in them. I find that they play to some of the strengths of Question Period - it allows the Opposition to ask questions that the Government (depending on the quality of their preparation) might not have forseen.
Particularly during a majority parliament (during which, of course, there is a limited amount the Opposition can actually do) I find media scrums to be a place where a person's intelligence, honesty and character can be tested by skilled questioning, in a way that can not happen during a formulaic press conference.
For me, one's ability to respond effectively, professionally and intelligently without a script in hand *is* a quality I want in my leader.
And really, does a pie in the face once every couple of years or so *really* harm democracy?
Ashley
Posted by: Ashley at January 30, 2006 01:27 AM
Iam not so much worried about the 'democratic deficit' with these observations. Than with media the media sport of chasing conservatives over slip ups.
We gotta be realistic here. We have a inexperienced team here. Some newly minted minister of something gets rattled in one of these scrums - says something stupid - and the media has a hay-day for a week.
I think it would be wise for Harper to make the ministers generously available to the media - but standing at the podium, like he was.
Posted by: Curtis at January 30, 2006 12:02 PM
St.John & K-W,
The idea here is to find a concensus of all Canadians using measured, rational and compassionate thought processes. Using inflammatory language (like "baby-killing rights", St.John) is not going to persuade anyone to rethink their ideals. They will react the same way you do if someone were to force their ideals on you. With a country as large, diverse and eclectic as Canada, we have to expect to have differences of opinion. It is only our ability to co-operate on these differences which will allow us to move forward as a country. Put aside the "my-way-or-the-highway" attitudes and try to meet people on common ground. You my find that the solutions come a little quicker when you admit that all of us have faults and are willing to identify your own.
Posted by: Jan Schaafsma at January 30, 2006 01:37 PM
 
|
|
