T1B

"We know where Canadians stand, they are with us. It's now time for the Opposition to tell us where they stand," he said.

mv wrote:
Who gives a fuck?

Marty Wrote:
Offerings, such as benefits or entertainments, intended to placate discontent or distract attention from a policy or situation.

tough love wrote: My guess is todays choice announcement will only strenghten his growing approval ratings.

Martyred wrote:

tough love wrote: My guess is todays choice announcement will only strenghten his growing approval ratings.

That's why governments drag out the scare tactic, "Law and Order" talk. To whip up the population into a frightened frenzy.
Thanks for bringing to our attention that there was a rampant crime epidemic.


Read Hegel.

The Prime Minister who would be president
Does Harper really get it? Canadians didn't elect him, the voters of his riding did. He is the leader of his party and the Prime Minister, but we don't want a president, writes Arthur Haberman


Apr. 19, 2006. 01:00 AM


Much has been made about the new style of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. He is different from several immediate predecessors in how he conducts himself and how he relates to his cabinet and Parliament.

The clue to his behaviour may be that Harper really wishes that he were president of Canada.

And not just any kind of president, for there are states that have prime ministers and presidents where the latter is a symbolic head of state, much like our governor-general.

Harper takes the U.S. presidency as his model, where the president is both head of government and head of state, and has a power and deference unknown and inappropriate to parliamentary governments.

The presidential style began immediately after the election in January, when Parliament was not in session.

First, Harper limited his access to the media, keeping something of a distance, controlling what would be known and said.

As part of this desire to keep a regal distance, he informed his cabinet that no one could give interviews or release information without clearing it with his office.

When the minister of external affairs made an error, he went back to the press the next day to "clarify," meaning to retract, his earlier statement.

Harper was the hub and the rest of the cabinet and his minority party were the spokes — all roads to people and information lead through the PM's office.

The difference with ordinary parliamentary cabinets is that, say, under Brian Mulroney or Jean Chrétien, the prime minister was first among equals. Now they, and we, were quickly informed, the PM is first, and the rest of the cabinet is possibly second.

Then he went to Afghanistan. Thank heavens we didn't have a "mission accomplished" moment.

But that was because before you have that, the choreography of supposedly strong leadership demands a "we-will-not-cut-and-run" statement to show that you are determined and tough.

It doesn't really matter what you are determined and tough about in the U.S. style of the presidency, you just have to do this to show you are not a wimp, most especially if you are perceived to be something of a policy geek and someone who has never served in the armed forces (or avoided serving through the reserves or because, in the immortal words of Dick Cheney, it just wasn't one of his priorities).

Just to make certain we know who is in charge, the minister of defence, who also travelled to Afghanistan, never got to speak a word.

The other important thing for U.S. politicians is to invoke the deity and always assume that God is on one's side.

So Harper ended many of his early public speeches with a "God bless Canada" invocation.

When, say, presidents George Bush (I and II) and Bill Clinton invoke God, they are without question referring to the Christian deity, in a society which expects that immigrants assimilate into the mainstream. Does Harper not get it about Canada?

When he invokes his god on behalf of all Canadians, he is excluding a lot of us in a multicultural society where we can choose our own traditional faith as well as becoming Canadian.

We are content in a post-modern world of citizens with multiple identities.

Many of those to the south are not, but, of course, being presidential means that God is part of your office staff.

Then we had the recent Speech from the Throne, delivered by the governor-general.

Harper, however, decided that instead of a speech to Parliament reported in the media, it would be a media event meant to display the rightness of his positions, something like the annual State of the Union address in the United States since the time of president Ronald Reagan.

So the military was present, including one soldier who had recovered from wounds of war and gave interviews, to be part of the theatre of state, much like George W. Bush often using the military as his audience. Remember, the president is also the commander-in-chief of its armed forces, much as Harper seems to want to be. Did he not permit and encourage pictures of him flying a military aircraft on his way to Afghanistan?

Is there a problem with all this centralization of power, which is continuing, and the determination to be perceived as a distant leader?

There are several. First, there is the reality of having a governor-general, something I am certain troubles Harper.

We have a head of state, and it is the crown, represented in Canada by the governor-general. It is she to whom we defer and give the respect we wish to pay to our country.

It has been reported that one of Harper's aides asked a bunch of civil servants to stand when Harper entered the room. They didn't, though I am certain they would stand for the governor-general.

Then there is the difficulty that, while we have what political scientists call a mixed government, we do not have the separation of powers of the U.S. constitution.

Bush is the executive, he is not a legislator. He picks his cabinet and they are responsible only to him. Harper is also the executive, but he gets that position by being the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, our legislative body. He picks his cabinet and they are responsible to both him and to Parliament.

So the PM is another parliamentarian, responsible to the Senate and the Commons. Winston Churchill understood this when he said his proudest position was as a member of the British House of Commons.

I wonder whether Harper gets it. We didn't elect him, the voters of his riding did. He is the leader of his party and the Prime Minister, but we don't want or need a president.

The greatest danger to our constitutional development is if the style that Harper has displayed in the past several months actually becomes accepted practice for him and future prime ministers.

Then we will lose something of our political identity, as both the cabinet and Parliament get much weaker and much less important than anyone should want them to be.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Haberman is University professor emeritus of history and humanities at York University

Tina wrote:Looks like Harps in it for the long haul.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper unveiled on Wednesday the Conservative government's plan to move forward with justice reform this spring, which will include mandatory minimum sentences for a series of crimes.

A: The minimum sentences will apply to drug trafficking, weapons offences, crimes committed while on parole, and to repeat and violent offenders,

B: The second measure will be to end the practice of conditional sentences, which allow criminals to serve out their sentences at home.

C: Another move by the government will be to increase the age for sexual consent between an adult and teen from 14 to 16.

We know where Canadians stand, they are with us. It's now time for the Opposition to tell us where they stand," he said.

tough love wrote:
It's a Scare Tactic - The got nothing Libby Tards who supported the fools who introduced the soft on criminals and perverts legislation in the first place.

Bird Lover Wrote:
Hyprocrite got elected for convincing just enough of you braindead lemmings to believe his bullshit.
But the MAJORITY of Canadians aren't as fucking gullible as you two.

Forty percent of Liberal voters, and a quarter of NDP and Bloc Quebecois voters, told Decima Research they were generally satisfied with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government.

JF Gagged:
Well at least this one post of your nobody's gonig to need a tl's gibberish to English translator..

Thanks for that at least.

JaysFan wrote: But the MAJORITY of Canadians aren't as fucking gullible as you two.

Hapday wrote:

JaysFan wrote: But the MAJORITY of Canadians aren't as fucking gullible as you two.

Pop and kettle much? You still suck gLiberal cock at every opportunity hoping the gravy train will return, don't you? The days of sliding brown envelopes of money to pals at restaurants are over. Just like the 416, enjoy being irrelevant, politically and otherwise, for the next decade.