Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Doubling down

by Paul Wells on Thursday, January 8, 2009 11:06am - 121 Comments

Stephen Harper doesn’t sound particularly sheepish in his interview with the boss. Wrong on policy? Nope: he’s going to put cuts to public funding of political parties in his platform for the next election. (Excellent. Bit belated: Since he clearly planned to do this all along, he maybe should have put it in his platform for the last election. It’s an odd rationale for electing a guy: if we do it often enough, we might finally smoke him out on what his plans are.) Wrong on the economy? Nope: this week’s version of the Harper economic policy was the right one all along. But perhaps the most striking line is this one, in which he muses about his party’s chances if the opposition unites to defeat him:

Obviously, if we had an election today somebody will have a majority because it will be either Canada’s Conservative government or the coalition.

Goodness.

Now obviously, this applies today (or, say, the first week in February), if the Coalition of the United ND-Libera-Québécois, branded as such, unites to take the government down on a confidence vote and then petitions the GG for a new government within this Parliament. Harper will petition the GG for dissolution, believes he’ll win, and now says he would run the whole campaign as a binary choice between Our Lot and That Lot.

But don’t kid yourselves, coalitioneers. This binary choice will now certainly be the campaign strategy of any Harper-led campaign at any point in the future under any circumstances. Recall that Harper just campaigned against Stéphane Dion as a guy who would raise the GST, based on two-year-old musings by Dion during the ’06 Liberal leadership campaign. He doesn’t recognize statutes of limitations on his opponents.

So at the next election, whenever it happens and however it comes, Harper will run on a guarantee — his own guarantee — that the opposition will unite to govern unless Conservatives outnumber them all. And the opposition can’t exactly deny it, can they, after Dion spent the last campaign swearing up and down that he would never form a coalition with Layton’s bunch?

Note that I’m not predicting Harper’s polarization gambit will win. I’m just telling you, that’s the game now.

Tags: Harper to Canada: Fish or cut bait, Stephen Harper

More by Paul Wells

SAB

I agree Paul.

Harper = meanie. Could do better.

Tony Bennett = stand-up guy.

Should Tony Bennett usurp any of the candidates in Beaches-East York, or run as an independant, he will have my vote.
http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

“whoever the prime minister of Canada is, could he maybe do a better job while he has it?”

ha! proof you’re a Liberal, a Conservative propagandist would never get caught with a gender exclusive statement.

anyway, judging from Iggy’s performance today and to date, I think we’ll be repeating this conversation next week with the opposite outrage and accusations.

Paul Wells

Did Iggy do something today? Oh yeah, the town hall out east. I missed everything. (I’m actually on a vacation of sorts; I blog because it’s weirdly soothing.) I presume it was one for the ages.

http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com chuckercanuck

its just that it just hit me:

how does a guy like Iggy step in front of an audience of business people and tell them how he’s going to save the economy? even the cbc reported it as a “skeptical audience”.

and now, neocon tax cuts with neocon middle east policy. and every Liberal is going to sign up to it just like every Liberal, just days ago, signed up to a socialist-separatist coalition. its rather breathtaking.

I just figure he won’t escape some scathing stuff from you. Because its hard not to be scathing.

William

kc
I never meant what I wrote to be thought of as a political agenda as you would say. It is just a few examples of how i believe things will change with a Harper majority. And that`s the key word—-change—the small c conservative thought process of most Liberals is very resistant to change. But change doesn`t have to mean conflict or hardship—-it`s just moving on with the new age we live in.
Most change happens naturally in our lives but Gov`t groups often have to be dragged kicking and screaming to change—-maybe it`s their sense of comfort and entitlement in their positions.
Harper is the first PM in a long time to want real change—-Trudeau talked about it but only in a flighty philosophical way and he governed in a very traditional conservative way—-There is a lot of room for change and now may be the best time for it.
So , don`t fear change—it`s all good—-hey there`s a leader just south of us that won an election with that slogan.

http://macleans.ca kc

william
You have the right to advocate these changes. But you still don’t get it. These changes are not so simple or painless to impliment and more importantly they are not changes i believe the majority of canadians desire. As i said, the very ugliness of some of your images leads me to not trust you or people ho think in these very narrow terms. do we need change? yes, in many ways, but idon’t trust this particular group of conservatives to impliment them.
Yr take on Trudeau is completely wrong.[ i give you credit for not frothing at the mention of his name] Read Andrew Potter’s take on the repatriation of the conststitution. Trudeau, Lougheed and company can lay claim to being at least the modern fathers of confederation. Trudeau my friend, like it or not, turned this country on it’s head, a true agent of change. SH is also an agent of change but not,in my opinion, for the good. It’s all depends on yr perspective i suppose?

http://macleans.ca kc

William – A last pt. You cannot honestly equate the change that Obama promises with the change that SH would like to bring about. Obama will reach across partisan bounderies in an attempt to unite and heal. It may not work, but he offers hope of a different type of politics. I see no evidence that SH offers anything of the sort. In fact i think that the majority you want would already have occured under a different kind of leader as the liberals have been a spent force for some while. All bets are off now. The Liberals have found the sort of leader that may well rejuvinate them. We live in interesting times.

James R. Halifax

Paul wrote:

“James R. Halifax is betting I won’t vote for Harper at the next election. Safe bet indeed: I live in Ottawa Centre. The prime minister isn’t a candidate here.”

Very clever Paul. You must have thought a while to come up with a comment like that. You’re probably almost half as smart as you think you are. Well done.

“However I have already written, way down on one of these comment boards in December, that my personal preference, as between the Harper Conservatives and this coalition as it was constituted or could conceivably be constituted from the current Parliament, was that the Harper Conservatives continue to govern. I doubt that preference will change before an election. I’ve written a book — it’s the only book I ever wrote — that sings Harper’s praises to the freaking heavens. That book is still on sale, so I have a non-trivial pecuniary interest in Harper’s continued success.”

Title please…..I will go pick it up.

“I have voted Liberal, NDP and Conservative in my adult life. In every election since 2004 I have had to think and study a fair bit before choosing among the candidates for those three parties in my riding.”

Any adult who votes for the NDP, is not one who should be offering political opinions and expect to be taken seriously.

“James R. Halifax is a really big idiot. Worse, he’s a common kind of idiot: the kind who reads criticism of a public figure, takes it as an endorsement of the man’s opponent, and decides that since the writer Is A Liberal, no more thinking (and I’m not sure the inclusion of the word “more” is appropriate, actually) is required.”

Paul…Paul….Paul. Most people who’ve read anything you wrote understand that you think almost everyone is an idiot. Common or otherwise. Your opinion of yourself pretty much assures that result.
As for thinking you’re a Liberal……I’d say that you are more a Liberal than you are a writer. I guess we’ll consider it an impasse.

“Folks: I could not possibly have less influence over who gets to be the prime minister of the country. ”

And that’s what really bothers the press gallery too…..though they do their best to change this.

“That decision is made way, way above my pay grade: it is made by all of you, and then by your Members of Parliament. When I do this political-journalism thing, I am almost always writing a variation on a pretty simple line: whoever the prime minister of Canada is, could he maybe do a better job while he has it?”

Yes he could…..if only the Opposition parties and biased press allowed it.

“If James R. Halifax or any of the rest of you came here looking for me to say nice things about the prime minister or anyone else except perhaps Tony Bennett, you’ve come to the wrong place. I am sorry for your confusion.”

No one is asking you to SAY nice things Paul…..they’re asking you to be fair. If that’s too difficult, maybe you should call it a draw and stick to voting for Layton’s Party. Of course, if you want to talk to any NDP MP’s, or a few select Liberals….they can be found protesting Israel somewhere in order to show their support for HAMAS.

shalom.

Jack Mitchell

In other words, if you don’t dip yourself in Tory blue bodypaint and run screaming down Wellington St. with a big portrait poster of St. Stephen, your non-partisan bona fides will forever be suspect.

http://macleans.ca kc

It might be better to avoid breaking out into:” I left my heart in San Francisco.” too! [ is that Bennet?]

madeyoulook

James, your statement of indictment buried the lede:

I have voted Liberal, NDP and Conservative in my adult life.

All right Wells, fess up, who did you vote for when you were not an adult? I didn’t know Joe Volpe was an elected official that long ago.

http://macleans.ca kc

James – way to answer reasoned, critcal insult with…well…insult. It might have been a little bit more effective and briefer to blow him a raspberry.

http://macleans.ca kc

Very good story Paul. Harper has been very crafty. Die on tis hill now and that one later, maybe. The coalition option still doesn’t appeal. But if Ignatieff has good footwork the other hill may have a view after all. Pass the budget, swollow the poison pill and say you’re taking one for the good of the country or whatever is most plausible. Now sing a loud song about how the threat of the coalition has been worth it all. lots of stuff on how Steve was off key and couldn’t hold a tune without the help of the coalition chorus. That’s the easy part. The hard work is earlier. Convince yr campaneros that it’s in their interest to let the choir master Ignatieff bring the baton down on the coalition. Why? What’s in it for jack and Jill? Ignatieff could argue plausibly that of the 3 only the libs have any real chance a future power. It makes sense to put the coalition to sleep for a while and meet again at a future date under the b

http://macleans.ca kc

Sorry addendum. … banner of say a liberal minority [the best they could hope for] govt. Not as a formal coalition but informally. This would answer the legitimacy concerns of the electorate. A powerful arguement against the coalition as it stands. A coalition but not necessarily a coalition now. Of course the would be the little matter of the election. if they go coalition they better hope the GG gives it too them. ” No wheels on my wagon, …the Harpies after me…but i’m still singing a happy song”

James R. Halifax

Pffssssttttttttttttttttt……………………

better?
James R. Halifax

Nice to see Mr. Wells had the webmaster remove my rebuttal to his lame post. Not surprising really….that seems to be about his speed when things don’t go his way.

Not too bad really…….it simply confirms exactly what I wrote about you Paul. In fact, I was expecting it.
http://jobislife.ru Âëàäèìèð

Â ñâîåì áëîãå ÿ ïèøó î ïðîéäåííûõ ìíîé ñîáåñåäîâàíèÿõ , è î òîì êàê òðóäíî óñòðîèòñÿ â “êðèçèñíîå âðåìÿ”.

Âû ìîæåòå íàéòè ïîëåçíûå ñòàòüè êàê âåñòè ñåáÿ ñ ðàáîòîäàòåëåì, êàê ïðàâèëüíî îôîðìèòñÿ ïðè òðóäîóñòðîéñòâå, è êàê ïðàâèëüíî ñîáëþäàòü ðàáî÷èé êîäåêñ.