My take on Harper....

[Edward Campbell]

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.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I guess it is hair-splitting, but the way I see it, Harper did honour his campaign province by allowing the Atlantic Provinces to opt to remain within the Accord if they wished.

I find Premier William's remarks about how the court of public opinion is more important than courts of law quite telling, and more than a little distressing.  It is clear (to me) that he is aware of the inherent weakness of his position, and is merely seeking to inflame an uninformed public.

So, yet again I am dissapointed, but not surprised, at the eternal wrangling between the provinces and the federal government.  If everyone just stayed in their lane and was honest with their constituencies, our particular model of federalism would actually be surprisingly effective.

You just wait until I am PM.

 

[Journeyman]

While not arguing one way or the other on the Accords.....or to put too fine a point on it, I think the electorate has the attention span of a gnat. As such, the election campaigns will be argued on whatever crisis latches onto the voters' meager attention at the time.


“Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist”
~George Carlin

 

[scoutfinch]

If everyone just stayed in their lane and was honest with their constituencies, our particular model of federalism would actually be surprisingly effective.

With this, I agree entirely.

 

[Flip]

Oh really Olga?

I find Premier William's remarks about how the court of public opinion is more important than courts of law quite telling, and more than a little distressing.  It is clear (to me) that he is aware of the inherent weakness of his position, and is merely seeking to inflame an uninformed public.

I liked this bit best!

And Edward...............

Sweet Fanny Adams.

It's been a while since I've heard that!
Actually when I heard it (regularly) I was too young to get it!

 

[a_majoor]

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.

While not arguing one way or the other on the Accords.....or to put too fine a point on it, I think the electorate has the attention span of a gnat. As such, the election campaigns will be argued on whatever crisis latches onto the voters' meager attention at the time.

Running against Stephan Dion's record would be an outstanding strategy, except for Journyman's observation. How many Canadians either know or care that Dion was a Cabinet Minister during the Creitien and Martin eras, and thus was involved or had knowledge of Adscam, the decision to deploy to Afghanistan, non action on Kyoto, approving in principle a 5X expansion of the Alberta tar sands production (in spite of Kyoto), transferring Taliban prisoners to the custody of the GoA, etc.

So far he comports himself as if he simply sprang into being just after the 2005 election, and the MSM supports the illusion since his action/non action or presence at these and other events is never mentioned, but the "blame" for many of these policies is given to the Conservatives.

Prime Minister Harper also has an interesting problem. His tactical ability to work the house and govern effectively in a minority situation seems to depend on keeping his hand close to the chest and springing surprise after surprise on the opposition, but we, the voters, need to see much better communications coming from the PM and his front bench.

 

[Kirkhill]

Harper made these comments referencing a budget that would not have been available at the time of the campaign.  At the time of the election, he stated that he supported the Atlantic Accords.  The Accords were intentionally negotiated as free standing agreements independent of equalization. 

I recognize that "truth" is always what people "think" it is.  Even at the time of signing a document two people can have very different expectations of the agreement being made.  And people that want to generate an issue will portray the "facts" any which way that resonates to support their cause.  Facts don't really matter except as hangers from which to hang a story.

My version of the story is this:

Harper agreed to the Atlantic Accord.
When he got into power he allowed the Premiers to hash out equalization without his involvement.
They failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Harper exercised his power to arbitrate and made an arbitrary decision.
That decision was accepted in most of Canada.
In Newfoundland (a premier running for re-election) and Nova Scotia (a premier managing a minority government), both with deficits and no spending room to support elections, the decision was decried.  
The decision allowed Danny and Ronny to choose between the Atlantic Accord which was offered in accordance with Harper's campaign promise, or accept a different formula.

Now they seem to be arguing that it is unfair to force them to make a choice.

 

[scoutfinch]

Oh really Olga?

I liked this bit best!

And Edward...............
It's been a while since I've heard that!
Actually when I heard it (regularly) I was too young to get it!

What does any of this have to do with me???

 

[Edward Campbell]

This item, reproduced here from yesterday’s Globe and Mail under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, might go in a number of places but, since it deals with promises, I’m putting it here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070712.wcosimp13/BNStory/Front/home

Civil servants can ‘speak truth to power,' but will they be heard?

JEFFREY SIMPSON
From Friday's Globe and Mail

July 12, 2007 at 11:22 PM EDT

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, explaining why he opted for patrol vessels instead of the three icebreakers that his party had promised in the election, said the Department of National Defence had influenced the government's thinking.

A few weeks before, however, Mr. Harper complained to representatives of the ethnic media that the Department of Foreign Affairs wasn't entirely with the government's program and needed to be hauled into line.

In one case, then, the government broke promises after reflecting on advice; in another, the government got mad because it doesn't like the advice. What's the civil service to do?

The civil service is caught between two mandates, a dilemma especially acute with a self-described “new” government. It must “speak truth to power,” that is, explain what the politicians had not considered, and it must carry out the decisions of the government. What if the two mandates conflict?

What if “speaking truth to power” means explaining that the three promised icebreakers will be more costly than the party had thought and will suck money from other defence priorities? Is the civil service doing its job in offering these explanations, or trying to frustrate the government's priorities?

Or what if Foreign Affairs warns that the government's harping on human rights in China and one-sided support for Israel will have certain negative consequences? Is this “speaking truth to power” or lèse-majesté? Is the civil service doing its job or stepping out of line?

The Harper government can certainly display a healthy disregard for anyone “speaking truth to power.” It got elected on a series of commitments, and it's going to implement them – except, of course, when it chooses to break those commitments.

Consistency, as in the icebreaker promise, has not been a hallmark of the government – sometimes wisely so, as when foolish promises were jettisoned, sometimes regrettably so, as when foolish promises were implemented.

Put another way, the Harper government will disregard the advice of experts when it chooses but pay attention when it must, without admitting, of course, to having changed direction.

For example, no one in the federal civil service (or any economist anywhere, for that matter) thought cutting the GST made sense. And no one in the Finance Department believed in a “fiscal imbalance” between Ottawa and the provinces, for the excellent reason that none existed. The Finance Minister privately acknowledged that the whole idea was a myth. Nonetheless, the government had made commitments, and it proceeded.

So, too, almost every criminologist, retired judge and civil servant in the criminal justice field disagreed that mandatory minimum sentences would reduce violent crime. Yet, the government proceeded in the face of “expert” advice, because it had made a political commitment.

Almost every non-governmental expert and civil servant in the social policy field told the government that tax credits to produce child-care spaces wouldn't work. But the government proceeded, once again, because it had made a political commitment. It quietly scrubbed the idea in the last budget.

But, in other instances, the government listened and adjusted to those who spoke “truth to power.” It promised to retain income trusts but paid attention when the Finance Department (and others) said they had to go. It pledged to exclude non-renewable resources from the equalization formula but reversed itself after civil servants and an expert panel explained the huge problems that promise would create.

In foreign policy, experts warned that the focus on human rights in China would harm economic relations. They were brushed aside, until reality dawned. The government now has identified one of its top foreign policy priorities as developing new trade with India and, wait for it, China.

The government, however, just doesn't care for Foreign Affairs and always wonders about its advice, whereas it appreciates the men in uniform at National Defence, although battles between the top military brass and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, a former military man, have been fierce.

The sorting out of which advice to heed and which to ignore is about learning how to govern, and that means realizing the world of opposition is a self-absorbed universe of rhetoric and illusions, of cheap headlines and 10-second television clips that can often lead to foolish promises from which a government then finds it needs help to escape.

Simpson didn’t go quite far enough.

There is a ‘spectrum’ of ‘advice’ which the public service, including the armed services and the civil service, may – in some cases must – give to politicians.

At one end: public servants have a duty to ‘advise’ and politicians have an obligation to accept such advice on regulatory matters.  As an example: let’s imagine that Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor called in his senior staff and said: “Cut a cheque for the Dinning family, settle this mess ASAP.”  Shortly afterwards his Deputy Minister (Ward Elcock) would have said, “Minister, you cannot give that order.  No one here is allowed to obey such and order.  There are ways to do what you want – only one, a change in government policy, is the right one. Go ahead, if you need to, and blame us bureaucrats for frustrating your efforts to help these poor folks but, for now, we cannot do as you ask – it is an improper, indeed illegal order which will not be obeyed.”  Minister O’Connor must take that ‘advice.’  The civil servants, and the military, have responsibilities, defined in law, and ministerial fiat cannot change that.

At the other end is this sort of advice, given (I’m guessing) to Peter MacKay:  “Minister we are worried about the implications of the shift in our Middle East policy.  We understand that it is policy and we are here to implement your government’s policy, but here are some factors which we believe you need to consider …”  Peter MacKay would be well within his rights to say: “Thank your for your concern but we elected politicians will set policy and you will make it work despite all your reservations.”

In the middle is this sort of advice which we might, again, imagine was given to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.  “Minister, you are well aware of the fact that all of us senior bureaucrats are opposed to the GST cut, but here is how we plan to implement it and here is a pocket briefing note on the consequences – something you can use in discussions, we hope.”  Then, later, we can imagine he got this advice: “Minister, the telephone companies are sending us warnings about income trusts. As you know, we officials disapprove of the political promise to leave trusts as they are and now we must strongly advise you to break your promise and reverse the policy – the economic health of the country requires it.”

We can also imagine this ‘middle ground’ advice to Defence Minister O’Connor: “Minister, three armed Polar * icebreakers will cost $n Billion and will need xxx sailors each.  We cannot find that much ‘room’ in the budget before the year 20yy which is long after you and we want to have these ships in service.  In addition, we’re not sure the Navy can handle the personnel bill.  We could afford six ice capable patrol vessels with much smaller crews.  We may have to ‘pay off’ a few of our smaller coastal patrol vessels to free up some naval reserve sailors for the new ships, but we can manage both the people and money in the near term.”

The ‘middle ground’ advice is the sort of thing that happens on a regular basis in Ottawa.  The senior public servants, including Gen. Hillier, can and do speak their minds and ministers understand that they usually have a range of options – except where ministerial, even prime ministerial ‘power’ is not sufficient to force a public servant to do something improper.  Ministers would be much ‘poorer’ if the public service just accepted all ‘policy’ as a hard fact; the Mandarins help most when they give politicians unbiased, professional advice – even, perhaps especially, when the politicians will not like what they hear.  It’s best to understand that some, maybe a lot of people don’t agree with your policy before you get nailed by a hostile reporter or a crowd of angry voters.

I think Harper can and will use his policy/promise reversals as examples of ‘listening’ and ‘doing the right thing’ and will say he is prepared to take his lumps for doing those right things.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>In one case, then, the government broke promises after reflecting on advice; in another, the government got mad because it doesn't like the advice. What's the civil service to do?

Not go leaking to the media when it doesn't get its way, at the least.

 

[Kirkhill]

>In one case, then, the government broke promises after reflecting on advice; in another, the government got mad because it doesn't like the advice. What's the civil service to do?

Not go leaking to the media when it doesn't get its way, at the least.

+1 Brad.  They are there to supply legal options and to define risk - just like any good corporate lawyer or accountant.  The Chief EXECUTIVE Officer gets to make the decision and carry the can for both success and failure.