Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

A battle of image

by Aaron Wherry on Sunday, June 27, 2010 6:43pm - 137 Comments

The Prime Minister’s massive image appeared on the monitor hung from the ceiling at the international media centre shortly after five o’clock—Mr. Harper speaking to a news conference at the Toronto convention centre on the occasion of the conclusion of the fourth meeting of the G20. His blue and black striped tie matched not only his suit (black), but his backdrop (dark blue) and the sign on the lectern (a slightly lighter shade of blue).

“At a time when concerns on government debt were growing, this was the challenge we had to face,” he said. And so, apparently, they had.

He outlined vows made to reduce government deficit and debt—”fiscal consolidation” it is apparently now called. He warned against protectionism and hoped of recovery. He applauded the most recent budget in the United Kingdom, exchange rate flexibility in China and financial sector reform in the United States. He noted that the decision to impose a levy on the banking industry would be left to individual countries. He took a question on a proposed clause that would have addressed yuan reform and the ramifications for national sovereignty in a world increasingly dependent on common action contained therein.

He is fond of this stuff and comfortable discussing it. He pleaded and lectured and went on at some length. He tried to boast of the domestic economy without gloating. At a reporter’s invitation, he pumped his fist and strained to explain the relevance of the global economy and meetings such as these. “Canadian jobs are intimately linked to what goes on here,” he said.

He took one question, from the same reporter, on the protests of the last 48 hours. “We obviously deplore the actions of a few thugs,” he said, “But the reality is, unfortuantely, that these summits attract that element.” He said this explained the security costs.

To the left of the big screen projecting the Prime Minister’s image, a small screen (relatively speaking) showed coverage from the local news channel. That screen, overwhelmed with information, was split into several frames of varying size and prominence.

For awhile Mr. Harper occupied the largest square. After a few minutes though, he was relegated to a smaller square in the bottom right. As he spoke the largest square filled with images of people and police officers in the streets of Toronto. A few minutes more and the Prime Minister’s image had disappeared completely from the news.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/ Open_Democracy

    I think that Mr. Harper has already forgotten that his government kindly provided Canada with its largest deficit ever this past fiscal year. And here I thought that it was only the Canadian public that had short memories.

    "We obviously deplore the actions of a few thugs…". I'm surprised to hear him talk that way about his Cabinet in a public venue!

    Just kidding Steve.

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

  • Emily

    Yup, now he's totally opposed to his own previous policies and actions.

    I guess the 'thugs' in Toronto were as unexpected as the recession eh Steve?

    • The Real Jan

      He's now preaching fiscal conservatism to the rest of the world. With a straight face.

      • burlivespipe

        He's already done a 180 and embraced Chretien and Martin fiscal policy and regulatory successes as his own, so it should not surprise anyone that he's skating quickly across the fake lake about everyone else towing the "canadian line". It's just not many media members are willing to shine too much light on the line he's selling…

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

          LOL – those were the same policies and banking regulations that Harper lobbied against and voted against and now he's pounding his chest like Superman as if he created it all.

          Problem there Stevie, a lot of economists, leaders, etc know more about it and the FOX News audience believes any crap thrown at them.

        • Orson Bean

          . . . just like Chretien and Martin did a 180 and embraced Reform Party fiscal policy in the 1990s. The more things change, the more they remain the same . . .

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose Janice Rose

      I think Harper was likely very relieved to see the thugs as some justification for the huge security tag and the extension of police powers to arrest anyone they pleased.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

        There's actually some interesting bits floating around about how the worst acts of the thugs (the police cars) were actually done by the police. Things like the cars having been stripped of anything valuable and already damaged when they were left where they were, tactics to increase the pressure on people like telling them they should leave but preventing any exits from being available, etc.

        How true these are, I'm not sure, but it'd be interesting to see some of the larger media shops taking a look at these type of accusations. Paiken's tweets certainly seem to suggest the latter was definitely true.

        • jet

          what an idiotic post, could we just support the police, in so many countries we would have reports of protesters beaten and killed, here a few little babies were detained, if they didn't want to be detained they could of emptied the streets instead of providing the cover for the black bloc, and posting incendiary comments and then saying "how true these are, I'm not sure" is incredibly dumb and a deliberate attempt to lead people into believing what you're not sure is true.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

            No, were I trying to lead people into believing what I said, I wouldn't have indicated at all that I'm not sure whether they're true or not. I'm not making the statements up myself, I've seen them in various alternative presses out there, but I tend to take those with large grains of salt.

            And no. I can't just "support the police" I try not to do anything blindly, as that's simply stupid. I'll support them in the things where they've shown they should be supported. Police response to protest gatherings, however, hasn't been shown it's deserving of that. From pepper spray to agent provacateurs in Montreal.. there's just too much crap that the police seem comfortable with for me to give them my blind support.

            That said, I don't blindly doubt them either, which is why I'd like some more reputable media firms to take a look at these stories to see if they're true at all.

          • Andre

            I work with the wives of two local policemen who volunteered for security work at the G8. I got whatever bits of news and perspective they could get by texting. After doing 16 hours at the G8 they got about 4 hours of sleep and were shipped to the G20 for a 22 hour shift on the street.

            My first thought; who the hell forces volunteers to work that long in such a stressful situation and expect them to make rational decisions by the end of the shift. For pete's sake, it's not like they short on staff.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Fish_30 Al O'Wishes

            what an idiotic post…

            Yes, because there is no prior history of police ever doing that in Canada.

            I have no idea if the Toronto accusations are true, nor am I trying to deny or defend the reprehensible actions of the Black Bloc, but 'it would not surprise me to find out these accusations were true. I think it's a lot dumber (and dangerous) to blindly accept the official story just because it comes from the police.

            Oh, and as for the "babies" that were arrested, in one case it seems it was a literal baby.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

            Your link is about police going undercover, not about police participating in vandalism as was implied above.

          • Al O'Wishes

            Serves me right for rushing the search.

            This article has the accusation of the police attempting to incite violence. Cory Doctorow also has a posting about it in relation to the weekend (but I tend to take blog posts with a grain of salt.) The point being, it would not be the first time that police staged events like that during protests in an attempt to justify big security budgets. It's also not wise to blindly accept the official line just because it comes from "officials."

            The sad thing is, there will always be lingering suspicions and there is not much that can be done about it. Any sort of inquiry will be deemed as either a witch-hunt or white-wash, regardless of the outcome.

        • Gaunilon

          "There's actually some interesting bits floating around about how the worst acts of the thugs (the police cars) were actually done by the police. "

          Probably the guys who torched the police cars were the very same ones who detonated the controlled explosions under the WTC. Also the ones who faked the moon landings and covered up the Roswell alien landings.

          nods sagely

          • Orson Bean

            . . . controlled by secret radio waves transmitted by the Bilderberg Group, no doubt.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

            Why would your believing that not surprise me in the slightest?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

            Projection, I guess.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    Why won't both images prevail in the wake of these summits? Aren't Canadians sophisticated enough?

    In fact, my guess is that all this hoopla over cost will be mitigated somewhat by the clear need for security at these events. The violence will fade in people's memories, but any policy achievements probably won't.

    • Emily

      There is only one image of Steve….and no policy achievements.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        What about leaving the bank tax option to the discretion of individual countries, or the declaration concerning cutting deficits and debts, or the increase in spending on child and maternal health, and the other things mentioned on here, which you reply to with one-liner talking points? Aren't these things that Harper fought for, and won, for Canada?

        • Emily

          There never was a bank tax. There was a variation on the Tobin Tax that people talked about, but the rest was non-existent.

          And everyone is keen to cut deficits, and were long before these summits. The when, and by how much is still up in the air. Maternal care funding has been going on for years. Canada won nothing.

          As usual Stevie is fighting empty air.

          We still however have no trade deal. Nor has the world financial architecture been changed to fit the new realities.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            So, then, there is absolutely nothing that can ever be achieved between countries cooperating with one another? Or is it that you'll simply shoot down whatever your dreaded Stephen Harper does?

            btw, you sound a LOT like the troll "Nola" from the old Bourque boards. Just saying.

          • Emily

            Of course there's a lot that can be accomplished in such meetings. There certainly has been before this.

            Just…not this time.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            You make it sound as though nothing Harper could have done would have amounted to a hill of beans. That it all sucked, and that you're the expert we should all turn to to get things done.

          • Emily

            Well we ARE talking about Harper after all.

            The man who never saw the recession coming.

            The man who blew the surplus.

            The man who subsidizes the oil industry.

            The man who thought holding a G20 in downtown Toronto was a good idea.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            And here come the left-wing talking points. lol. Thanks for showing up. It's bound to happen on these boards, isn't it.

          • Emily

            Sorry, I don't like Iggy or Jack one bit better.

            Try again, Conbot.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Well, you certainly hate Harper, and I actually come up with original thoughts on here, versus your knee-jerk and obvious talking point campaign.

            Yes, yes, this summit was a complete disaster because Harper ran it. We got it already. We're not that stupid, you know.

          • Emily

            I hate stupidity and incompetence, no matter what the party.

            You've never had an original thought in your life, you just parrot Con talking points.

          • Jenn_

            Okay, Emily. I'm mostly on your side, most of the time. However, Dennis F, while a very partisan Harper supporter, isn't the mindless gutterswipe you are trying to make him out to be. Nor, for that matter, is Harper (I hate him as our PM, too, but let's put a little reality in our partisanship).

            The summit, for all its excessive dollars, was really quite successful. Perhaps not value for money, but a successful summit from Canada's point of view in that I think we got everything we wanted. And when I say 'we' I also think it goes to more than Mr. Harper. He apparently listened to someone who knew what they were talking about, at least insofar as what I've heard about thus far.

            So every once in a while, it is important to recognize a job at least moderately well done. God knows there's few enough occasions for it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Jennifer Ross for Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada! Someone who thinks. Someone who cares. Someone who is not shy to call it the way she sees it. Someone patriotic enough to put country before party fortunes. A real credit to the LPC.

            Now we need a true honest conservative to lead the CPC. At least then Canada would have a clear picture of what they would be voting for.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

            Thanks, MYL!

            Of course, all hope of anyone not knowing who I am at this point is definitely gone.

            But hey, why don't you run for the Conservative job?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Oh, sorry, I just pulled it off of the Facebook reference of your ID profile. If you want the name off, then please "report" my comment and edit your ID page, quick. I will not object to the Maclean's stewards removing my comment if you wish to keep your name quiet.

            And I have established a long list of "reasons why I will never be in government." So my having anything to do with ANY one party is likely toast.

            Besides, if you care enough about sensible efficient government that gives a damn about the wealth management of a future Canada, I will be too busy voting for you to care about who is leading the "stimulus" garbage CPC Party.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

            Nah, I won't bother. I've known for some time that I've made an easy path to find me, so this is only slightly easier.

            But, you'd vote for me? Really? I was going to make some snarky comment about people from other parties (or at least outside one's own) picking the leader of said party and how its probably not a wise move to go along with it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            This may come as a shock… (looks left, looks right, leans in and whispers) I have actually voted Liberal in the past. I voted scrap-da-tax when I was young and st– well, let's just say young. Thankfully, P'tit gars was lying about that little promise. Unthankfully, I was too st– uh, young — to realize how wrong I was to want to kill the GST.

          • The Real Jan

            But what did we get? I can't see anything concrete at all?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

            Oh well, if you're looking for something concrete, why on earth are you looking at a leaders summit? Their consensus and decisions are always fairly vague but sound good (cut the deficit in half by 2016–in half of what? Today's? 1999s?) Still, it is a roadmap of where they intend/would like/aspire to go, and so it does have some worth.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

            How quickly we forget "lol. Next."…

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

            Oh come on! There needed to be a summit for countries to do something about their domestic deficits? Or pick their own poison for bank regulation or taxes?

            I'm not blaming Harper, by the way, but this G20 crap is hardly internationalism. What collective result was there even economically never mind other cross border issues such as global security, action on climate change or 3rd world development?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

            Well, whether we needed a summit itself or not is a different question. Certainly, we don't need one when they can release the ending draft two weeks before the beginning. And collective action on global security, climate change or broader 3rd world development wasn't even on the agenda, was it?

            All I'm saying is that, since we had a summit, and since it discussed certain things, we can be pleased with Mr. Harper's performance on those certain things at that summit.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            Emily…..you are getting mighty tiresome. As someone who comments frequently even I am getting sick of your mantra. Do you not have an original thought?

            Sure you don't like any of the leaders? Yeah sure we believe that. Not!

          • O'Neill

            I guess your off oil right.

          • ex canuck

            Emily, thou art a shrew.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    I've never subscribed to the belief that Harper would some day win a majority.

    After G8 and the leadership role taken by Canada in convincing member states to cut spending, I am not so sure. Harper has really hit a home run here both for fiscal conservatism and for Canada. I suspect this may well translate into a majority win in the next election.

    • Emily

      Yeah, without dear oldStevie nations would have spent till the cows came home, right?

      Be serious.

      You might also want to watch the battle currently taking place on the streets…604 arrests as of now.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        So, now they're not supposed to be arrested and, instead, let loose to torch cars again? Wow, you'll agitate against Harper no matter what, won't you.

        • Emily

          Had you paid attention you'd know I want them to be charged with terrorism and have the key thrown away.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            So then why are you complaining about arrests? Geez.

          • Emily

            I wasn't complaining….I think there should be more of them.

            They can toss in the idiots who thought a G20 in mid-town Toronto was a good idea.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            A few idiots torched police cars, and you want to grant them victory. Not surprising.

          • ex canuck

            Down-town Toronto actually. So where should the clam bake have been held? Scarborough? or perhaps Rankin Inlet, which actually some of our brighter sparks have suggested, or was it Churchill, Manitoba? Why not try celebrating the fact that Canada has hosted successfully a global conference?
            Is it begrudgery that it was not a Liberal administration that happened to be in charge for it?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

      Interesting points. Maybe these continuing displays of actual leadership, versus the antics that we see from the opposition and some in the media, will translate into a more decisive electoral victory soon. In many ways, Harper has been blessed by the enemies he's had, and they don't even realize the extent to which they keep contributing to his ultimate success.

      • Emily

        What displays of leadership were those?

        Merkel? Berlusconi?

        Certainly wasn't Harper.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

          It's now the tenth time you've said it tonight? Don't you update your script?

          • Emily

            You keep replying Dennis.

    • Mike T.

      The atrocious overspending, the craziness in the streets and the bad planning will overshadow any agreements reached, at least in Canada.

      Plus the french president and british pm making jokes about him.

      • O'Neill

        The French President is laughing?That clown always has a grin on his face.It was only a few short years ago Paris was burning under his watch.Your Euro crush is showing.

    • Anon 001

      There is nlthing more adorable than an unsarcastic believer. This kind of blind unthinking loyalty must be absolutely priceless.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

      International statesmanlike leadership is one thing. The Bloc Québécois and inefficient distribution of overwhelming CPC popular support in Western Canada: are other things. I would not hold any breath awaiting a majority for ANY party in the next election.

    • hosertohoosier

      I disagree that Harper will get much out of this.

      1. Canadians don't care about foreign policy (except for Canada-US relations). However they do care about domestic policy – the high cost of hosting the summit seem to have more salience in the public imagination. Canadians will opt for the billion dollar question they understand over the trillion dollar question they do not.
      2. Austerity measures may bring increased stability to the global economy, but voters tend to reward high growth, not stability. By slowing the decline in unemployment deficit reduction will harm, not help Harper's situation (on top of the fact that Carney will eventually kill the present unsustainable boom).

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

        Hey now, the "Canadians only care about their pocketbook" argument is only supposed to be used against Richard Colvin.

      • Gaunilon

        I agree with everything you've said, but I think you're missing something. Canadians may not care too much about foreign policy, but they do care a great deal about Canada's standing in the eyes of other nations. Canadians relish our peacekeeping role, our global "polite" image, etc. It also means a lot to Canadians to be a player on the world stage, not necessarily flamboyantly but certainly in terms of quiet influence.

        Harper epitomized that quality of leadership by quiet influence at the G8 by pressing for widespread spending cuts. Canadians may not care too much about the spending cuts in other countries per se, but in terms of projecting an image of leadership Harper has emerged a clear winner…. particularly since he won over the other members.

        Winning elections in Canada is ultimately about this: the image that one is a responsible, serious, steady hand on the tiller. Harper began as a wild card, managed to get elected anyway, and has been steadily growing into the role since then. I think that this week he finally crossed the threshold and assumed the role of "Canadian leader".

        • Mike T.

          I will point out again that the other world leaders spent a lot of time poking fun at him, the Brit PM to his face.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            What BS. You seem to think friendly banter is the same thing as "poking fun at Harper to his face".

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

          I agree with your premise, that Canadians are very aware of their international image. But I think the opposite of your conclusion will hold for some Canadians, though it requires some awareness of policy. I wonder how many Canadians were unhappy about Canada adopting a Bush-like stance on maternal health – I certainly found it an embarrassment.

          And preventing a tax on global financial institutions immediately after the devastating collapse of the markets reminds me of Harper running interference at Copenhagen – it seems like he's on the world stage preventing good policy from becoming reality.

          We'll see if he reaps any electoral benefit from this.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            I wonder how many Canadians were unhappy about Canada adopting a Bush-like stance on maternal health – I certainly found it an embarrassment.

            On the other hand, you think everything Harper does is an "embarrassment". Harper did a great job raising money for maternal and child health.

            The bank tax was bad policy. The better solution for countries with dodgy banks is to levy a special tax on their own banks, as France and Germany are now doing. I don't see why Canadian banks should be taxed to atone for the sins of banks in the US, France, Germany and England.

          • TJCook

            "The bank tax was bad policy."

            We were talking about public perception, not the quality of the policy. EDIT: I just re-read my post, I see how it looked like I was describing the bank tax as "good" policy. I only meant that Canadians might see it as good policy, and see Harper preventing it from happening.

            "Harper did a great job raising money for maternal and child health."

            Did he? Canada's contribution is nearly $3B, while the rest of the G8 will contribute just a couple billion more. I give him credit for the initiative, though I quibble with the details, but I think it's a stretch to call it a "great job raising money".

            "you think everything Harper does is an "embarrassment"."

            Oh grow up, jarrid.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            We were talking about public perception, not the quality of the policy.

            Really? You think the Canadian public will criticize Harper for killing bad policies like the global bank tax? Give the public some credit here.

            Did he? Canada's contribution is nearly $3B, while the rest of the G8 will contribute just a couple billion more.

            Get your numbers right. The G8 summit raised more than $7B in new funding for maternal and child health, and only $1.1B of that new funding came from Canada.

            Oh grow up, jarrid.

            Who? (looks around)

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

            "You think the Canadian public will criticize Harper for killing bad policies…"

            No, again, I said it "seems like he's on the world stage preventing good policy from becoming reality." In other words, the public might decide that a global bank tax is *good policy*, and be unhappy that Harper took the lead in preventing it.

            I know you think it was bad policy, but you pay more attention to policy than 99% of Canadians. It remains to be seen how Canadians perceive the bank tax, and whether Harper will benefit from having publicly helped kill it.

            I don't know how I could say that any more simply. Do you really not see the point I'm trying to make?

            "Get your numbers right."

            You're right, Canada's in for $1.1B, not $2.3B. But like I said, the G8 countries contributed a total of only $5B, with Canada paying 1/5th of the total. The rest came from non-G8 countries and private foundations. In fact, most of Canada's contribution is coming from existing CIDA money, and other countries are expected to do the same.

            The reviews are decidedly mixed: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/…
            http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/2010…

            "Who? (looks around)"

            Sorry, I had you mixed up with another commenter who throws in cackling ad hominem snark. Who p*ssed in your cornflakes today?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            It remains to be seen how Canadians perceive the bank tax, and whether Harper will benefit from having publicly helped kill it.

            Truth be told, the majority of Canadians don't pay close enough attention to the news to have even heard of the French/German global bank tax proposal, and now that it's dead, they never will.

            I don't know how I could say that any more simply. Do you really not see the point I'm trying to make?

            Well, you botched it the first time, which required the edit to your subsequent comment. But cheer up, sunshine. I understand that you personally don't think the bank tax was good policy.

            But like I said, the G8 countries contributed a total of only $5B, with Canada paying 1/5th of the total. The rest came from non-G8 countries and private foundations.

            I'm glad that you corrected your error. Do you still think that Harper didn't do a good job raising money for this initiative? He's raised more than $6 billion in new contributions from non-Canadian sources so far. I believe he met his target, although of course there will always be those who say: "It's still not enough".

            Sorry, I had you mixed up with another commenter who throws in cackling ad hominem snark.

            Um, who p*ssed in your cornflakes today? You seem awfully sensitive to my quip that "you think everything Harper does is an 'embarrassment'." That was intended as humour, and I don't think it's too far off the mark.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

            Whether you agree or not, the jury is still out on what domestic political benefit Harper will reap from the G8/G20. That's the point I was trying to make.

            Tell me, how do you square: "Truth be told, the majority of Canadians don't pay close enough attention to the news to have even heard of the French/German global bank tax proposal…"

            with: "You think the Canadian public will criticize Harper for killing bad policies like the global bank tax? Give the public some credit here."

            Those seem to be at odds.

            And I didn't "botch" anything, though I clarified my first response. Sheesh.

            "Do you still think that Harper didn't do a good job raising money for this initiative?"

            I think the fundraising result was mediocre, with many commitments for only two years, and that's assuming the participants keep their promises. Did you notice the mixed reviews I linked to? You haven't addressed them, you just keep declaring that Harper did a good job.

            "You seem awfully sensitive to my quip that…"

            Well, you do have a habit of snarking at me personally from time to time. It's hard to tell when you're being snarky and when you're shooting for funny.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Those seem to be at odds.

            How are they at odds? To the extent that the public is paying attention (a majority aren't), I don't think that Harper will be roundly criticized for killing the bank tax.

            Did you notice the mixed reviews I linked to? You haven't addressed them

            I read your links. Of course there are "mixed reviews". There always are for stuff like this. You can't please everyone.

            You call the fundraising result mediocre. What number were you hoping for? Like I said, I'm pretty sure Harper met his targets. Of course, it's easy to pretend fundraising is a failure if you keep raising the bar. Harper only raised $7B? He should have raised $10B! Only a two-year commitment from some countries? Unacceptable!

            I think that the G8/G20 was a big win for Harper at the end of the day. We'll have to wait and see whether this will benefit him politically.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

            "Of course there are "mixed reviews"" … "What number were you hoping for?" … "it's easy to pretend fundraising is a failure if you keep raising the bar."

            I didn't have a number in mind at the start, and I'm not moving the goalposts. What I'm noticing is the same as the critics I linked to: Canada's contribution is as large as the US, and at least twice as large as Britain's, Germany's, France's and Japan's.

            The initiative has merit and that money is nothing to sneeze at. But given the proportions of contributions from the G8 nations, I think it's a bit much to congratulate Harper on his sales success.

            "We'll have to wait and see whether this will benefit him politically."

            Which is what I've been saying from the start.

        • hosertohoosier

          Canadians may like being thought of as a good guy country, but they consistently fail to chasten politicians that do not fit that mold. For instance, every PM since at least Pearson has failed to meet openly stated foreign aid commitments – how much flack did they get for it? Alternately, lets consider whether or not Canada lives up to its environmental commitments (ie. Kyoto). As Chretien saw emissions soar he suffered no major criticism.

          Have major international successes historically translated into political wins? Borden's significant contributions in WWI got Canada a seat at the table at Versailles and led to the beginnings of the Statute of Westminster. Canadians rewarded his successor with a massive electoral defeat due to a collapsing economy. Lester Pearson is probably the classic example of a mr. good guy leader -despite his international gravitas he was consistently unable to win more than a minority government. Similarly, Mulroney didn't appear to get much out of leading the charge against apartheid.

          The few cases where international decisions did translate into successes were pocketbook questions. For instance, Chretien's stance on the Iraq war was popular because it soon became clear that he had saved us a lot of grief.

          • Orson Bean

            Good points, hth. Arguably Mulroney was the recent Canadian leader who had the most pull and respect internationally, yet he was loathed at home. Certainly, Mulroney did a great job of cultivating truly warm personal relationships with the likes of Reagan, Maggie Thatcher, Bush the Elder, Mitterrand et al. Politically at home, that counted for SFA.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

      "Harper has really hit a home run here both for fiscal conservatism and for Canada. I suspect this may well translate into a majority win in the next election."

      Wait… You mean… People still consider Harper to be a fiscal conservative? And you think that voters will give him a majority based on his G20 performance?

      Seriously?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

        No, I mean that people will start to consider Harper a leader, both nationally and internationally.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

          There's no denying that Harper's handling of international relations, be it economic or diplomatic, have improved. After all, he didn't use the international press conferences to attack his opposition as he's known to do. Considering where he was when he first took office, he's doing better. That being said, the bar is awfully low for this PM. I personally think that his rather aggressive pursuit of the bank tax may come back to haunt us in the CETA negotiations.

          Harper is still a bull in a china shop when it comes to foreign affairs.

          In any case, if Harper scored points with Canadians over the weekend, he'll have to refrain from his usual domestic theatrics (prorogations, conduct unbecoming of a statesman, etc.) to maintain his momentum. He usually can't help himself. Let's see if he's matured on that front too.

  • RayK

    It's hard to imagine how any government could have done a worse job hosting these summits.

    So far by my count we've got the fake lake, out of control security costs, a complete in ability to actually maintain security, a complete funding flop for the government's main summit initiative (maternal health), a general acknowledgement that this summit is mearly a prelude to the real meeting in Seoul and a series major disagreements with most of our G8 allies on everything from abortion to climate change to financial reform.

    Did I miss anything? This whole affair is a major debacle. People need to be fired over this failure.

    • Emily

      I'll agree with that. And heads should definitely roll.

      A major lost opportunity.

      I'm sure better will come out of the real G20 in Seoul in November.

    • Mike T.

      And the state heads of France and England cracking jokes at Harper's expense – that's gotta hurt.

      • Anon 001

        I'm sure everybody jokes about Harper. This guy missed a photo-op because he got stuck in the loo, after all.

    • hosertohoosier

      It amazes me how much you fail to comprehend the relative importance of different issues. A one-time sum of a billion dollars of government spending (probably compensated by indirect economic activity generated by hosting the summit) is simply inconsequential. The maternal health initiative is also relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things. It is window-dressing, much like the global fund was. The $50,000 or so fake lake is beyond inconsequential.

      • hosertohoosier

        What mattered about this summit?
        1. The defeat of a global bank tax – a multi-billion dollar levy that would have generated moral hazard problems leading to a multi-trillion dollar financial crisis.
        2. An agreement on billions of dollars worth of deficit reduction, with the aim of preventing a multi-trillion dollar debt crisis.
        3. The move towards a floating Yuan, which has been artificially undervalued – driving America's capital account deficit (which is in the hundreds of billions), as well as the global savings glut (which was one of the causes of the multitrillion dollar financial crisis of 2008).

        Whether or not you believe that 1, 2 and 3 were good decisions (and there is room for debate on that) it is simply mind-boggling that anybody would decide that these are inconsequential events.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

          Dan Gardner makes short work of the "moral hazard" talking point: http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/s…

          In short: public bank bailouts have created that moral hazard already. If we're not prepared to break up the global financial institutions, and we can't afford to let them fail then we're already living with that moral hazard. Just like we're already living with the "multi-trillion dollar financial crisis" you mention in the hypothetical future tense.

          At least the bank tax would have allowed governments to prepare for these crises in advance. This summit was consequential, yes, in that it allowed Harper to run interference on behalf of the global financial institutions that have been bailed out by the public.

          • hosertohoosier

            Dan Gardner doesn't know what he is talking about. The fact that bailout structures are widespread IS the damn problem. When you combine bailouts with deregulation you allow firms to make bad decisions, and take away the consequences. The answer is to combine regulation with some lender of last resort institutions, and make sure those institutions operate with Bagehot rules (so that bail outs have punishing consequences). That is not what was being discussed – essentially the Europeans wanted a bailout (one that would preempt reform).

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

            "The fact that bailout structures are widespread IS the damn problem."

            I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, the current structure of the global financial system means we're dependent upon it. Our choices, as I see it, are to force a restructuring/breakup of the big players (apparently not going to happen), impose a comprehensive and globally coordinated system of regulations (which is underway but looks too weak and uncoordinated), impose a tax to recover recent public costs and mitigate against future costs, or accept that the system will break down from time to time at massive expense to the public.

            Obviously an aggressive and effective system of regulation is the right approach, but I don't see the will to do it in the current world leadership. If the world is moving to a patchwork of new regulations, I think the tax will still be necessary to mitigate against future failures. At least that moral hazard doesn't result in the wholesale transfer of wealth from the public to wealthy private stockholders.

          • hosertohoosier

            You don't need global regulations (though we do have them – for instance look at the Basel Agreements), in fact they may be counterproductive. Different countries have very different banking systems that require distinct approaches. For instance, Canada can get away with oversight oriented measures because our banking system is concentrated and easy to monitor.

            That said, the United States certainly has made a strong commitment to regulatory reform. Look at the bill Obama is poised to pass. It isn't perfect but it represents a very serious commitment to reform.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

            What? Our banking system is concentrated, being the only banking system that didn't allow the massive mergers? You may not need the *same* global regulations–one size may not fit all–but you certainly do need global regulations. That is, each country regulating its banking system rather than the wild, wild west of banking some have had up to now.

          • hosertohoosier

            Canada didn't need bank mergers – our era of consolidation occurred decades ago. In case you haven't noticed, there are 5-6 major banks in Canada (there are some others but they are tiny). That is low. Very very very low by international standards. By way of comparison the US has 7,815 FDIC-insured banks, as well as many organizations that essentially operate as banks (Germany has about 2400, France about 1500). As a share of the country's assets our biggest banks hold vastly more than relevant points of comparison abroad.

          • Orson Bean

            hth is correct. It's extremely difficult to get a charter as a Schedule I Bank in Canada under the Bank Act. And the consolidation happened back in the 1980s, when our banks scooped up virtually all of the major trustcos (remember Canada Trust?) and investment banks (remember Wood Gundy? Dominion Securities? Nesbitt Thomson?).

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

            But, TJ, is it a good idea to tell banks that their government is preparing, in advance, to bail them out when they make the next bone-headed move?

            Why can't banks be accountable for their own bone-headed move? Because you know any tax will just be added to the fees charged by the banks. Charged to the people, sometimes also known as the taxpayers. What difference does it make to us taxpayer people, I mean to say, whether you pay for the banks before they screw up, or after they screw up?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

            "But, TJ, is it a good idea to tell banks that their government is preparing, in advance, to bail them out …"

            Fair enough. I mean, if IBM and AT&T were big enough to break up, surely Goldman Sachs et. al. are due the same treatment, and that would be the ideal fix. My support of some sort of tax is largely due to a lack of faith that the new regulations will be effective in preventing another crash.

        • SirJohn_Eh

          1.The bank tax disappearing before being implemented can be completely attributed to the fact that the issue has died down in each leaders country. They all knew it was a bad idea, they didnt need Stevie the Economist to tell them that – the copying guy in each of their Finance dept's could tell them that. They dropped it as the issue has faded, and used it as a great thing to talk about when getting heat over bankers bonuses.
          2. Wow, good thing they had this Summit in downtown TO, or else who knows when/if the leaders would figure out that huge deficits are bad and must be cut. Question is – what is the starting point value for what they agreed to halve?? (there is no answer, no guarantee deficit amts to be cut).
          3. National financial minders (esp. in the US), have been quietly complaining about the false value of Chinas currency for years. This summit didnt further the issue's resolution at all, the changes required are completely up to China, no one wants to (or can) bully them into doing it faster than they feel like doing it.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_D_world M_A_D_world

      It might be said that the security was for those inside the perimeter. For them it worked extremely well. They watched soccer matches instead of the protests and anarchy after all.
      For peaceful protests, the bill is too high. To keep things peaceful enough that a game was a higher concern than personal harm. Debatable.
      Injuries have been reportedly minor if reported at all. Aside from the vandalism by thugs, this was a none event outside of the political cage.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/BGLong BGLong

    I'm glad that it has been made clear to the citizenry that they have been required to bail out
    the banking and speculator thugs. And that they are now required to bail out the bail out.
    Pay twice and get less. And they can thank the PM thug for poking a spanner in the spokes
    of the only feeble effort to elbow the banker thugs into ponying up some of the bucks they're
    sitting on because the poor souls get the vapors at the thought of lending at the current low
    rates. Rates which are low because ….. Anyway , back to the Black Bloc ….

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/M_A_D_world M_A_D_world

      From every other conspiracy theory looped out there. Maybe this Black Bloc thing was a bunch of insurance agents on hard times.
      Who else wins with smashed windows?

  • Anon 001

    Wouldn't that interfere with your real passion in life i.e. unmastering of your domain?

  • ex canuck

    Include me in if you include the pathetic contributors to this commentary.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    Well.. at least you'd be maintaining the normal quality of what you add to the world.

    • SpenBC

      Go F@#k yourself!

      • Blues Clair

        TO Cops, Arrest this man!

        • The Real Jan

          Sorry, they're too busy arresting members of the press.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            The Real Jan………the one thing I would love to see is Jim Travers in cuffs being led to the cage in downtown Toronto. They probably wouldn't find him because he would be in the bar located beside the fake lake getting the Liberal talking points for his next column.

          • The Real Jan

            Arresting the press – isn't that what they do in Iran? You Free Speech hardliners kill me.

          • Tony

            Next to the Anarchists, no-one enjoyed the G20 more than the press. They got to roam around in safari vests shooting photos of idiots, tweet endlessly to each other, "A rather large police officer just asked me for my ID!!!" , then head back to the fake lake for a glass of vino.

          • guest

            or spend the night in a detention centre on a concrete floor (mind the vomit and faeces); given a stale bun and the occasional dixie cup of water ever 6 hours or so; all the while surrounded by inconsolable freaks and geeks screaming shrill 'bloody murder' into the night.

            then after the whole ordeal and describing the conditions, have a colleague call you out on writing "some tear-jerky article about how Toronto had become a police state."

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

            The Real Jan…..even the Liberal loving media in Canada is not above the law. Like us regular folks they are expected to do what the police ask them to do.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            I think the police embarrassed themselves, arresting at least one employee from almost every news organization that was there (CTV, National Post)… meanwhile, CBC had bricks thrown through their van window.
            The cops failed to stop the rioters on Saturday, and then they decided to take it out on the easy and innocent targets the next day.
            I will give them credit though, for catching a lot of those black-bandanned hooligans with some undercover work. The raid on U of T and the other raids in the morning were well done.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

            Travers would cry like a baby in the slammer.

          • Orson Bean

            He'd blame Harper.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

    You just did, actually.

  • cooper

    So puke .There are more than a few of us who have to puke every time we have to listen to Harper lie, mock, torment,. brag, fumble,intimidate,threaten,or in other words just open his mouth. There is no wisdom there, a lousey leader, a lousey Canadian. and one hell of a lousy summit. A billion dollar meet and greet.

  • perplexed

    sorry, not seeing the 'success' here…sounds to me that in the short range, countries have decided to do what they want/works for them, we're out a whole hunka change and France (and others, I;m sure!) thinks we spent a fortune,,,,let's see how much of the policing involved was similar to the Montebello fiasco….oh yeah! A huge success! *rme* I'll be a believer if the markets show some stable growth. Otherwise, I wanna a refund

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      Well.. it seems the American markets are showing some strength today.

      But they also seem to be a lot less impressed with the Canadian side of things.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/psiclone psiclone

    Wow – you almost smell the desparation from the usual crowd of harper haters on web forums today … Ol Stevie boy clearly showed his detractors what he is made of and did Canada proud this event and no doubt polls will refelct this .. the next few weeks will be a real headached for the usual gang of malcontents and harper haters are going to be lining up at prescription pickups as they will having their meds updated of this there is no doubt now.

    • PolJunkie

      psiclone, the so-called "harper haters" usually don't have to do much to see Harper go down in the polls. Let the record show that since he's been in office, the man inevitably shoots himself in the foot EVERY SINGLE TIME the polls climb for the CPC.

      Why would this time be any different?

      • wilson

        Harper has faced 3 Liberal leaders, and he is still Prime Minister.
        The LPC is so desperate, they are in talks at becoming DipperLite,
        Iffy is overseas trolling for votes somewhere in London England,
        and McGuinty is trying to justify turning Toronto into a police state…..
        I'd say there is a difference.

  • Aster

    Whatever one might think of his politics, Stephen Harper (and all others who made the decison to host this conference in downtown Toronto) are intelligent people who can follow a rational argument. They knew perfectly well – from the beginning – that the events over the weekend where likely to happen. So why did they do it? Because the objective was always to boost his political prospects, not to "showcase" Toronto or to efficiently use taxpayer money. To hell with the business owners whose stores were trashed. To hell with the residents of Toronto. to hell with Canadian taxpayers who had to pay the bill. The Conservatives got what they wanted. Remember that next time Harper talks about fiscal prudence or law-and-order.

    • wilson

      And same for Chretien, holding the G20 meeting in Quebec City, in 2001.
      Infact, it's goundhog day…….
      -the Black Block thugs smashed windows and hurled projectiles at police.

      - 463 arrests, $2.5 million in damages, complaints about police manhandling peaceful protesters.

      -2001 summit was held within a fenced-in part of the city.

      - police held back early on; then they responded far more aggressively on the second day, even against peaceful protesters, and were accused of abusing their powers.
      http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/NewsChanne…

  • captcold

    "A few minutes more and the Prime Minister’s image had disappeared completely from the news"

    But his type will be in your wallets forever.

  • Oliver

    I'm not sure how Harper might have done well over the weekend. I guess he didn't do anything bad, but he didn't do anything good either.

  • wilson

    "A few minutes more and the Prime Minister’s image had disappeared completely from the news"

    Wishful thinking Mr Wherry,
    the Queen arrived today for Canada's July 1st birthday party…….

  • won'tgetfooledagain

    It seems everything Harper touches turns into garbage…obfuscated by smoke and mirrors…as his servile cabinet spouts platitudes about their glorious leader's achievement. Why is it the Harper government lurches and staggers from one self-induced crisis or debacle to another…these people weren't ready to run a country and are now running our country into the ground…bring on an election.

    • Orson Bean

      Yeah, the opposition's really clamouring for that election, aren't they?

  • Wjames

    Well now let’s see, we have the cost of the Gs app. 2.4 Billion + Harper well get a trashing bill from Mayor Miller of Toronto.

    The cops built a barricade then backed it up while the city was trashed.

    All of harpers initiatives were poorly supported by the world leaders, no freedom of choice, equals little support.

    World finances, Europe had it figured out already, USA does their own thing, and Harper is living off of the Liberals financial management record.

    Its plain to see what reality is here, but, Harper well ignore reality, give us his spin, plus he has our treasury to use to convince us.

    All of his right-wing supporters, radio talk shows, are on the Con’s talking points.
    Case in point to-day on the Bill Good show the Con hack Norman Spector spinning Harpers tales.

    Harper blew a 12 Billion dollar Liberal surplus and drove Canada to a record Deficit and Debt and spending is still out of control.

    Although he would have you ignore reality and buy into his spin, we have to differentiate between spin and reality.

    Harper wants a majority so bad he is willing to spend all of your tax dollars to convince you.

    • Orson Bean

      So what kind of donuts are they serving in the Liberal Party War room tonight?

      • James Connors

        What does Harper's stupidity have to do with any other political party. I ask this because I carry no brief for another political slant but I'm pretty damn sure Harper's a loser.

        • Orson Bean

          If you can't identify an agglomeration of stale Liberal Party of Canada talking points masquerading as a worthwhile post, that's your problem.

  • chet

    And so the tacit (and not so tacit) cheering on of the thugs to steal Harper's spotlight continues.

    The left just can't help themselves. They just can't quite resist the urge to pump their fists in glee as the police cars burn.

    Oh sure this, and a long line irresistable candy (for instance attempting to treat Taliban monsters as poor victims at the hands of the real enemy – "Harper's" armed forces) will continue to doom the left as they continue their slide to radical reactionary territory, frightening all but the most ardent leftists,

    but the partisan candy is too sweet. Too irresistable.

  • chet

    As for the surplus, there is this:

    every country in the western world lost surpulses or gained debt, in this worldwide economic downturn. It was Canada that far surpassed the rest.

    The partisan leftists here, know that well. But the pain of admitting this startling context is too much to bear. And so they gather round this place, dancing around the inconvenient truth, like drunkards stumbling around the flames of a dangerous fire, their drunken bliss keeping them safely away from reason.

    • James Connors

      As for the surplus, there is this:

      I 'm guessing, just like Stephen Harper, you have never had a surplus to deal with. Hand to mouth, is about your understanding of Economics?

  • Standing By

    My hope is that Harper's attempt to shove his neocon economic ideology down the throats of the other G20 leaders (most of whom, sensibly, don't care a lot what the final communique at a meeting of this sort says) may make it harder for Harper to get a seat on the UN security council.

    As someone who supports Canada' long-standing foreign policy approaches, I do not want Canada to have a seat on the UN Security Council as long as we have a rogue PM who is opposed to the foreign policy preferences of the vast majority of Canadians.

    • Orson Bean

      "we have a rogue PM who is opposed to the foreign policy preferences of the vast majority of Canadians. "

      So do you have reliable polling data which indicates what the "foreign policy preferences of the vast majority of Canadians" are?

      • hosertohoosier

        No, but I have some from the 2008 Canadian election survey. Canadians broadly support Harper's revamp of defence and pro-US stance in foreign policy. Canadians oppose(d) the war in Afghanistan (though the framing of the question asked was off), but Harper appears to be set to withdraw combat troops by 2011 (Ignatieff may be the more hawkish party leader on that question). There was no question asked on the Israel issue, though my understanding is that Harper's position – while unpopular (supported by about a third of Canadians) – is also a low-salience issue. Finally, if Harper's leadership has damaged Canada's reputation abroad it really doesn't show up (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126116/canada-places-first-image-contest-iran-last.aspx).

        On Defence spending Canada should…
        Spend more: 28.3%
        Spend as much as now: 42.3%
        Spend less: 29.4%

        Do you think Canada's ties with the US should be…
        Much closer: 7.5%
        Somewhat closer: 17.5%
        About the same as now: 47.2%
        Somewhat more distant: 22.6%
        Much more distant: 5.3%

        Canadian troops are fighting in Afghanistan. This is a:
        Good thing: 33.9%
        Bad thing: 66.1%

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/LoyalSubject LoyalSubject

    Mr Wherry, it is time to embrace your inner Tory.

From Macleans