- Reaction score
- 5,694
- Points
- 1,260
I think Harper has had a steep learning curve: he’s discovered that a PM cannot keep all, even many of the policy promises his political handlers required him to make.
Harper, personally, not ‘just’ the Conservatives, made a whole host of silly promises: GST cut, Atlantic Accord, Income Trusts, etc, etc. To his credit he learned that keeping some of those political promises was bad policy and he cast them aside. There is going to be a price – to paraphrase Ruxted, while “Liar! Liar! Pants on Fire!” is inappropriate for political discourse in a mature democracy that doesn’t mean it’s not going to be the Liberals’ main ‘line’ in the next campaign. It’s going to resonate, too.
Mr. Harper might do well, starting as soon as the house rises, to acknowledge that his campaign promises were ill-considered. He may wish to say, “I’ve learned from my mistakes. I’ll promise less and deliver more: good, sound, conservative government – socially moderate, fiscally responsible and honest.”
I think he still needs to keep a very tight leash on the socially immoderate (Cheryl Gallant, et al) intellectually suspect (e.g. Peter McKay) and flannel mouthed (Gordon O’Connor) members of his team but he should let a handful of ‘respectable’ Tories (Flaherty, Prentice, etc) and the trusted ‘attack dogs’ (Baird) go ‘off leash’ (bit never ’off message’) for a bit.
He needs to keep running against Dion and the Chrétienistas – painting them as just more and more of the same old corrupt Québecers while reminding Canadians that the Martinis (Hello Michael Ignatieff!) were indecisive bumblers who promised everything and delivered Sweet Fanny Adams.
He has, I think neutralized the global warming issue. He can point out that Canada’s position is appropriately ‘moderate’ – not too (and too expensively) ambitious like Germany’s but, equally, not ‘rejectionist’ like the USA’s – being careful to point out that the US rejectionists outperformed the preachy Liberals with Dion as Environment Minister. The rest will still attack him but my sense is that the issue has lost its ‘bite.’
Dion is, for now, regarded as honest – if a bit of a bumbler. The Conservatives need to find and exploit the chinks in his ‘integrity armour.’ That’s a bit tougher: Dion’s academic career is not, I think, full of scandal and his performance as Intergovernmental Affairs minister may have annoyed Québecers but it’s ‘lean pickings’ for scandal mongers. The most fertile field is his leadership campaign – financing and his ‘deal’ with Kennedy.
Lots of work to do – if he wants to be re-elected sometime between now and fall ’09.
Harper, personally, not ‘just’ the Conservatives, made a whole host of silly promises: GST cut, Atlantic Accord, Income Trusts, etc, etc. To his credit he learned that keeping some of those political promises was bad policy and he cast them aside. There is going to be a price – to paraphrase Ruxted, while “Liar! Liar! Pants on Fire!” is inappropriate for political discourse in a mature democracy that doesn’t mean it’s not going to be the Liberals’ main ‘line’ in the next campaign. It’s going to resonate, too.
Mr. Harper might do well, starting as soon as the house rises, to acknowledge that his campaign promises were ill-considered. He may wish to say, “I’ve learned from my mistakes. I’ll promise less and deliver more: good, sound, conservative government – socially moderate, fiscally responsible and honest.”
I think he still needs to keep a very tight leash on the socially immoderate (Cheryl Gallant, et al) intellectually suspect (e.g. Peter McKay) and flannel mouthed (Gordon O’Connor) members of his team but he should let a handful of ‘respectable’ Tories (Flaherty, Prentice, etc) and the trusted ‘attack dogs’ (Baird) go ‘off leash’ (bit never ’off message’) for a bit.
He needs to keep running against Dion and the Chrétienistas – painting them as just more and more of the same old corrupt Québecers while reminding Canadians that the Martinis (Hello Michael Ignatieff!) were indecisive bumblers who promised everything and delivered Sweet Fanny Adams.
He has, I think neutralized the global warming issue. He can point out that Canada’s position is appropriately ‘moderate’ – not too (and too expensively) ambitious like Germany’s but, equally, not ‘rejectionist’ like the USA’s – being careful to point out that the US rejectionists outperformed the preachy Liberals with Dion as Environment Minister. The rest will still attack him but my sense is that the issue has lost its ‘bite.’
Dion is, for now, regarded as honest – if a bit of a bumbler. The Conservatives need to find and exploit the chinks in his ‘integrity armour.’ That’s a bit tougher: Dion’s academic career is not, I think, full of scandal and his performance as Intergovernmental Affairs minister may have annoyed Québecers but it’s ‘lean pickings’ for scandal mongers. The most fertile field is his leadership campaign – financing and his ‘deal’ with Kennedy.
Lots of work to do – if he wants to be re-elected sometime between now and fall ’09.