From Chantal Hébert in Le Devoir (so it’s written in That Other Official Language), the most interesting column in ages: turns out the theatrical pout that constitutes Stephen Harper’s relationship with Jean Charest isn’t garden-variety spite, it is (Chantal supposes) strategic pro-active spite. And its goal is to ensure that the dastardly Charest, he of the multiple majorities, the sunny disposition, all the stuff that rubs our PM the wrong way – to ensure Charest never replaces Harper as Conservative leader.
While she makes her case, Chantal points out how scarce Conservatives-who-think-like-Charest have become in general across the federal Conservative movement. (By the way, this latter data point is Yet Another reason why, when your favourite member of the Ottawa Press Gallery rhymes off a list of potential Harper successors that’s topped by names like Prentice and MacKay, you should not pay too much attention).
It would be breathtaking indeed to think that poking sticks in Charest’s spokes might occupy any of Harper’s attention, when he has other stuff he could reasonably be working on. But it’s plausible enough to me. I wrote a book about Harper whose thesis was that by the end of 2001 he had grown tired of complaining, criticizing and intriguing, and wanted to reach out and build alliances for a change. What’s become increasingly obvious since I wrote that book is that the new, constructive Harper was a temporary case of a man playing profoundly against type; that he’s gone away; and that he will not be coming back.
Print
Comment
Most french kissing seems to eventually end up this way.
LOL. It’s not just Quebec – Harper has been systematically burning bridges with most of those who write books about him, simply by being so inscrutable, inconsistent and unpredictable. Chantal’s book “French Kiss” had a “best before” date that expired a few months after publication.
It would be a good service for Inkless Wells to translate all interesting articles in the *other* official language into English… something to consider
Just post the url into babelfish – http://babelfish.yahoo.com/ – good enough for general comprehension. It even does English to Portuguese.
“The Prime Ministers always do not have a dolphin”… :)
I think the Canadian people deserve an explanation as to why Mr. Harper hasn’t delivered the dolphins we so desperately need.
It was Chantal’s coded way of saying he is a Flipper.
Because he always do not have one, obviously.
@avr… it’s explained in this little note they left entitled “so long and thanks for all the fish”
Dolphins tend not to do too well, electorally.
(Why, oh why, can’t Babelfish say “heir”?)
It’s either the fault of the programmers in Bangalore, or it’s on porpoise.
HA!
Chantal Hébert is a terrific way and reason to learn to read more French. I trudge my way through her blog posts and feel happier for doing so.
Doesn’t always help. Stephane Dion had a dolphin named Carbon Sequestration.
Heh. It’s too bad he didn’t – it would certainly be better than having a dog named “Kyoto”. Dolphins are much more intelligent creatures.
I’ve met the fellow, and Kyoto could take a dolphin any day.
Can Kyoto blow bubble rings?
Great dolphin video. You have to see it to believe it.
“when your favourite member of the Ottawa Press Gallery rhymes off a list of potential Harper successors that’s topped by names like Prentice and MacKay”
I work on the belief that most msm reporters/opinion writers are lib in outlook so it makes me very suspicious indeed when they write that Prentice/MacKay are leading contenders Harper’s job. If reporters like them it must mean they are not very conservative which means they are probably not going to win leadership campaign. It is like how McCain was every US reporters favourite Republican because he was not very conservative. Red Tories don’t seem to be very welcome in Con party anymore and I assume they are migrating to Libs.
But jwl, in the US example you cite, those “lib”-leaning reporters would have actually been right in predicting that McCain would win the nomination, so I’m not sure if that really backs up your theory. Also, you might get different answers depending on whether the question is who is most likely to win the leadership, or who the reporter believes *should* win, because they’re best person for the job, or have the best chance at going forward to win a general election. That, by the way, would apply to all parties, not just right-leaning ones — how many journalists out there are convinced that John Manley could have won the Liberal leadership if only he’d run for the job, despite the fact that, in my admittedly limited and anecdotal experience, he has considerably less support amongst actual card-carrying Liberals, many of whom see him as more small-c conservative than even the current leader. The same goes for Peter MacKay and Jim Prentice, from what I can tell. People — including and maybe even especially journalist-type people — assume that parties will elect the most, well, electable candidate, which just isn’t always the case.
I think McCain was only nominated because he wasn’t very con and Repubs realized they had destroyed their ‘brand’ over the past 8 years with Bush and being in control of Congress so they needed a moderate.
What it comes down to for me is that most people think they are the average voter (except for me, I am well aware that I am on the fringes). When assumptions are made about who the most electable person is, people tend to think it’s the person closest to them in political outlook because they think they are in the centre. So when reporters say Prentice/MacKay for leader, I think they are projecting their beliefs and not really looking at Con/con habits. I guess we will have to wait and see who is more electable – squishy Cons or Cons that are more representative of the party.
I am genuinely surprised that many msm types think Manley had decent shot at leadership, I find that very curious because Libs I know think he’s a traitor to the cause.
Because many folks, who aren’t cons including i suspect plenty of libs, still recognise competence, Manley has it. To exclude purely on the basis of partisanship would make libs just as bad as…well…cons!
Manley for Foreign Affairs Minister! (seriously)
Oh, come off it – Manley is a boob. The guy who wanted public money to prop up the Ottawa Senators – puhleeze.
Everyone has a weakness, that is one big weakness.
When assumptions are made about who the most electable person is, people tend to think it’s the person closest to them in political outlook because they think they are in the centre.
Good Lord, jwl – that actually made sense!
so ppl with a lib outlook can’t be objective? hmm doesn’t that make your outlook seem skewed as well?
i for one am glad i can appreciate any party on the merits of what they offer (platform and content of their character/s and how that will impact my life, my family, my community, my province, my country, the world) and not solely on my own small personal beliefs.
Burn the bridges? Shouldn’t that apply to Charest?
What conservative base from Quebec would Jean Charest deliver to the Tories if he ran for the leadership?
Let’s see: he promised us a second Quiet Revolution of lower taxes and less union-control of our society. He caved. He’s not much of a conservative. He attacks the tories on $45m of arts cuts? When Quebekers spend less on arts and culture out of their own pockets than the rest of Canada he has the gall to pretend Quebec “cares” about its culture in some special way?
Charest has shrunk the Quebec tent by minimizing the presence of anglophones / allophones in Quebec government, too.
Does Charest’s legacy – not a bad legacy in general terms but not a good one in conservative terms – not have a role in Charest’s potential as a future Tory PM?
Look, he could win me over but the media and he are deluding themselves in thinking – per usual – its all Harper’s fault.
Let’s see: he promised us a second Quiet Revolution of lower taxes and less union-control of our society. He caved.
Unlike Harper, who wouldn’t dream of caving on his conservative principles. The man is a right-wing rock, of sorts.
The man is a right-wing rock, of sorts.
To be more specific, the rock is iron pyrite – a.k.a “Fool’s Gold.”
But, fool’s gold is so pretty!
Principles are promises aren’t the same thing. I would never attribute to Charest conservative principles -again, not that that’s a bad thing. I believe the promises during that election were just bluster. Plus, if anything, Charest has Chretien to thank for that election….
Does Charest’s legacy – not a bad legacy in general terms but not a good one in conservative terms – not have a role in Charest’s potential as a future Tory PM?
That depends, doesn’t it, on whether or not you look at the legacy of the current federal guy? ‘Cause if I’m not mistaken, Stephen Harper’s whole policy focus could reasonably be described as “more liberal than Liberal”. Stephane Dion being the prime example. Some could say he dragged the Liberals to the left, but I think it’s equally plausible to argue that Harper pushed the Liberals there.
I dare say there are many who would vote for Ignatieff over Harper but Charest over Ignatieff.
I completely agree. I’m pretty sure that Ignatieff is to the right of Charest in most respects.
“I completely agree. I’m pretty sure that Ignatieff is to the right of Charest in most respects.”
Is he really or is this an image Charest has to convey given Quebec’s progressive leanings?
Or is Charest more right to convey a more proper ideological hue to the conservatives he means to win over, while conveniently conveying a progressive attitude to the Quebeckers he’s currently governing? Or is he pretending to be right to shore up the progressive elements of his province, all the while doing so knowing that conservative supporters are watching him pretend to pretend to pretend to be a progressive?
Huh? Didja think of that?
What’s the difference between Charest and Iggy, I ask you…
As a Quebec conservative (and volunteer), and one-time fan of both Harper and Charest, the feud has done nothing but make me wish poxes on both houses. Well, ok, the feud has done some other things, but its me we’re talking about. One of the big advantages Harper had in the last couple elections, especially vs Martin, was a committed ground team. While Liberals held their noses and voted red, we had been so many years in the wilderness and wanted it so bad, we knew through that whole campaign that our volunteers were outworking theirs.
Harper has absolutely blown away that kind of goodwill. ESPECIALLY in Quebec. The committed conservatives will now hold our noses and vote blue. And that’s the most they can hope for. Paul, your headline is very accurate. The bridges are blown, the tent is shrunk.
The one mistake here is that conservative movement does not contain many like Charest. That’s not correct. Only the government does not contain many like Charest. This government is not one the conservative movement is proud to call our own.
a relief to see; but they were glad to benefit from the rule weren’t they? by their silence the conservs appeared to condone PM Stephen and the min-conserv govt.
Isn’t the fact that H declines to rebuid in Q after his mistakes, an indication he never cared all that much anyway – the western populist is never really gone away. His new strategy is that of the wreaker – if he’s the last man standing, then by harry he’ll be a majority of one! Steve must win – and i thought Martin was an unprincipled schemer
sigh; and time’s a-wasting for our country’s opportunities and future.
I would love to see either Peter Mackay or Jean Charest as candidates for the leadership of the Conservative party – it might just seal my vote.
It should be ANYONE BUT HARPER!! (ABC)
Harper would have his mother clean Charest’s house, if it meant more political support from Quebec.
Is it possible that there could ever be a return of red tories?
As a parallel story, can Chantel please explain Harper’s bi-polar relationship Dalton McGuinty?
They are both Überpragmatists. When it’s convenient to fight, they fight. When it’s convenient to cooperate, they cooperate.
This is a departure from Hebert’s usually well-informed commentary. Charest stands no chance of winning the CPC leadership. Leaders are chosen by the conservative party members, and it is unlikely that Quebec CPC members will overwhelm those from western Canada in a leadership race. Too many of us remember that Charest jumped ship to become a large frog in a small Chretien liberal puddle. He abandoned the PCPC to Joe Clark which is in itself unforgivable.
umm excuse me WV, but aren’t the Liberals in Quebec and BC more like conservs in ideology? did you know this or does it matter little to you since you need to get your Lib dig in?
dude, are you nuts? Charest didn’t want to leave the Tories and was heavily armtwisted by Quebec federalist establishment/forces of Desmarais to take the Quebec Liberal job. He was seen as the only hope to defeat mighty Bouchard since the best the party had at the time was Daniel Johnson. (and as we know, he never did defeat bouchard in the end.. i doubt whether he ever would have had Bouchard stayed)
Charest was named PCPC party leader in 1993 after Kim Campbell lost her seat and only Charest and Elsie Wayne were re-elected. In the 1997 election the PCPC improved from 2 to 20 seats while Reform went from 54 to 60 seats, The writing was on the wall. Charest did not need a lot of convincing to move to the Quebec liberals in 1998. What you miss is that Charest has no coin as a CPC leadership hopeful west of Quebec.
Sheesh.
Mention Israel once somewhere in the comments and they all come out of the woodwork…
..and then the post is gone!
Magic.
Um, the explanation is pretty easy. Successful politicians in Canada are jerks (Harper, Chretien, Charest, Trudeau, Danny Williams) while guys with a Mr Rogers image are not successful (Joe Clark, John Turner, Paul Martin). Jerks don’t like other jerks.
Mr. Wells,
Off topic, but I think of you as one of the central bloggers here, so… any idea if the new comment moderation is still being tweaked? It’s been exceedingly frustrating to get comments through lately, and I think I’m safe in saying I’m not one to write crazy “moderation worthy” comments, generally.
At the very least a “Your comment has been blocked” message would be nice. All we get now is the simple failure of the comment to appear, and it’s happening all the time these days. It’s very frustrating.
Off topic.
Comment Moderation.
Still being tweaked?
Fairly excessive lately.
Frustrating.
End benign comment (fingers crossed).
LOL, YAY!!!
Three edits and it finally got through!!!!!
There is a critical reason Charest will never lead the Conservative party and, if he did, that he would be a disaster. Harper has only been able to govern as a centrist because he built up a lot of street cred with the base. Charest as leader, like John McCain or John Tory more recently, would have to address constant knives in his back. Even if he did succeed, the coalition he would have built would essentially be the Mulroney coalition (angry Albertans with nationalist Quebec). We all know that the Mulroney coalition is unstable – it only won re-election in 1988 by focusing the election on a single issue which, once decided, no longer provided any glue for the party.
John Manley would be a far better choice for Conservative leader. He is a religious conservative (personally), without injecting it into his politics. He is an English Canada, but as a guy from Ottawa who served in the Chretien cabinet in the unity crisis 90’s, he has a good ear for the concerns of Quebec. He is a competent man, with solid fiscal conservative credentials, and a pragmatic view of Canada’s role abroad.
The media’s problem isn’t so much that it falls in love with centrists. Its problem is that it falls in love with any centrist, without making critical distinctions, because reporters are in a politics 100 world where median voter theory reigns. Canada is more complex than the Downsian model. Our politics are – perhaps – conservative-liberal, but also decentralist-federal (and if graphed, would be bimodal, with an English Canadian and French-Canadian distribution).
Does Chantal really think that ‘Charade’ was the intended successor to Harper ? Really ? Over the dead bodies of how many former Reform MP’s would ‘Chubby’ get the job ? Hmmmm ? Does that make Gordon Campbell the ‘dauphin’ now that he is in favour, according to this ‘analysis’ ? Wells is right, interesting column, the only problem is that the story just doesn’t seem to have a single shred of credibility.
Frienemies!
Once again another Macleans attack of our prime minister!
Yeah, occasionally i wish we had a different system. Wouldn’t it make sense if a PM could look at his options and say: “hmmm, Cannon’s a bust. I think i’ll give John a call, he’s not too busy”! Of course that would presuppose that H wants someone competent there at all!
I suppose Harper could have appointed Manley as a Liberal Senator in December, and then appointed him a cabinet minister in a “sincere gesture of bipartisanship”. The trouble is that Manley would have been tarred and feathered by the Liberals.
On the “system” angle, I don’t believe there’s a requirement, technically, that a Cabinet Minister be in Parliament. Couldn’t the PM, in theory, appoint pretty much anyone he wanted to Cabinet (Manley for example, but, heck, me for a more ludicrous example).
Am I wrong about that?
Other problem: He’s a Liberal.
OK then, Joe Clark for Foreign Minister!
But he’s our kind of Liberal!
I would love to see Joe Clark as Foreign Minister, provided he is supplied with a map of Israel.
As of what year?
Nnnnnno, Manley would be a better choice, if they were the only two options. He at least doesn’t suffer from the delusion that he’s broadly conservative.
by PM Stephen’s new standard one need not even be “elected” vis Fortin (sp?)
wow, that was supposed to be a response to Lord Kitchener’s Own @Mar 16, 2009 at 6:11 pm
ghost in the machine again?