Next ask yourself; couldn’t events and times be changed to enable the current Prime Minister to be there and avoid even appearance of a slight? Even delaying the House of Commons ceremony to accommodate the Prime Minister Harper’s schedule should be simple enough to arrange.
Let face it, the Prime Minister of Canada does not want to be there…for pure and simple personal and political reasons. Too bad Steve. Showing respect is part of the job description of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Canadians indicate in poll results that they are unsure if they like Stephen Harper as a person. Surely this rudeness and slight underscores a personal character flaw in Mr. Harper as a person. This incident is a minor issue in the more complex context of running the country, but it serves as example of the kind of man Stephen Harper is. It makes you think about just how worthy Stephen Harper is, as a person, to serve and represent us in this most powerful and important office in our country.
As for me, I think such incidences of political and personal pique ought to resolve any disquiet in the minds of Canadians about how Stephen Harper ought to be perceived. We have seen him perform as a bully and as a miscreant and as an obfuscator. And now we see just how small minded and petty he can be. Stephen Harper has proven himself not to be a leader and he did not have to spend millions of partisan advertising dollars to substantiate that fact for us.
The Harper Cons have gleefully accused Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario of being a “small man of Confederation.” Prime Minister Harper’s actions here, and there are others, make him look absolutely diminutive as a man. We ought view this event as an opportunity to question if Stephen Harper has the qualities of leadership and the qualities of character to serve the Confederation and Canadians well enough.
Canadians indicate in poll results that they are unsure if they like Stephen Harper as a person. Surely this rudeness and slight underscores a personal character flaw in Mr. Harper as a person. This incident is a minor issue in the more complex context of running the country, but it serves as example of the kind of man Stephen Harper is. It makes you think about just how worthy Stephen Harper is, as a person, to serve and represent us in this most powerful and important office in our country.
As for me, I think such incidences of political and personal pique ought to resolve any disquiet in the minds of Canadians about how Stephen Harper ought to be perceived. We have seen him perform as a bully and as a miscreant and as an obfuscator. And now we see just how small minded and petty he can be. Stephen Harper has proven himself not to be a leader and he did not have to spend millions of partisan advertising dollars to substantiate that fact for us.
The Harper Cons have gleefully accused Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario of being a “small man of Confederation.” Prime Minister Harper’s actions here, and there are others, make him look absolutely diminutive as a man. We ought view this event as an opportunity to question if Stephen Harper has the qualities of leadership and the qualities of character to serve the Confederation and Canadians well enough.
I applaud Stephen Harper in not attending this ceremony. Were it not for Joe Clark, the conservative movement in Canada would have got together in 2000 and not 2004 and we would have been spared of a whole term of Chretien/Martin. It was only through Harper's incredible leadership that the merger and the victory in the 2006 election happened. Joe Clark did his best to hinder him all along the way.
ReplyDeleteBets say Harper serves for 9 years, compared to Clark's 9 months. 'Nuff sed.
Mulroney killed the PROGRESSIVE Conservative party and Peter McKay broke his word and sold it down the river to Stephen Harper for a cabinet post.
ReplyDeleteNever confuse Conservative with Progressive Conservative. They are very different things. That is why Joe Clark "hindered" Stephen Harper all the way along. That was a good thing but in the end deceit trumped principle and with the Harper Cons it has been that way ever since.
I agree with you on one thing. I blame Chretien and Martin Liberals for the current minority Harper government. Had their egos not gotten in the way, we would not be in the governance mess we are in today.
This is pretty strongly-worded post, Ken, but not offbase. I am amazed by the comment by Anon@8:32.
ReplyDeleteIt is a simple matter of courtesy and civility (not to mention the politics of inclusiveness) that a Prime Minister should honour his predecessors in the manner he hopes someday to be honoured. That ethic should override partisan considerations, much less the settling of old scores.
Shame on Harper.
The whole country is moving right. Look at the amount of people aligned with Harper, the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever seen, who have been elected to our provincial legislature.
ReplyDeleteAnon at 10:42 - Looking at the polls and the static "amount of people aligned with Harper" shows there is more uncertainty about him than any indication of a growing support.
ReplyDeleteMy sense is he his past his best before date.
Go to my May 8th post on the survey done by the Canada West Foundation that shows westerners are moving to the centre.
The old line Reform Alliance types are living in a bubble if they don't see that shift happening.
Just like Dion, Joe Clark was an ineffectual leader who was weak on many, many levels.
ReplyDeleteIf the polls were in the Liberals favour, they would have called an election by now.
eric, have you lost your mind? Whether Joe Clark was ineffectual or effectual is not the point. Harper should honour a former PM and not be small minded.
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:32 R us serious? Harper is a better leader than Clark so Clark desreves to be slighted? Is that your logic?
Your logic exyended suggests that Mr. Stelmach should refuse any honour to Don Getty or Raplh Klein.
That is silly. You are silly.
Yes - the difference between the Conservative Party of Canada and the former Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is that the first one is truly conservative - the last one was running left of the Liberals under Joe Who.
ReplyDeleteAfter the damage Joe Clark did to Canada there's no way anyone should honor him. Harper is right to bow out gracefully.
ReplyDeleteI agree. If someone is your political enemy and you think he or she did a lot of damage to Canada, you should not show them any respect. Why should anyone respect Martin given the sponsorship scandal? Why should anyone support Dion who is willing to impose a carbon tax on some of the most vulnerable individuals of our society?
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 10:19 is the essence of the small mindedness I am talking about. Martin called for the judicial inquiry on the sponsorship scandel. That is and example of a quality of character in a politician.
ReplyDeleteWhy has Mr. Harper delayed calling his promised inquiry on the Mulroney/Schreiber affair. Is this dely or denial of a serious political promise that goes to good governance for Canada the measure of Harper the man?
The Cons penchant for control and command political approaches is not good governing and Canadians are not only tied of it - they are now wary of the Cons because of it.
The very reasons Martin lost was his lack of leadership on the inquiry and Stephen Harper's incredible vision for this nation.
ReplyDeleteGiven Harper's impecable record since 2006, I'd be surprised if he wasn't awarded a majority second only to Mulroney's sweep in 1984.
Anon @ 4:44 - what flavour of Kool Aid does the PMO make you guys drink?
ReplyDeleteIs ANON the name for Harper supporters?
ReplyDeleteI know they are busy leaving comments all over the place in case anyone thinks that possible alternatives exist.
There is another word -- graciousness -- it does not belong in the new political world.
I hear that there are other ways to get things done in a minority government besides belittling the opposition and continuing dare them with "confidence" motions
You got it Bob - power trips and tactics in a mean spirited paternalism are the default Harper Con position for the PMO.
ReplyDeleteResourceful, responsive, caring, nurturing and adaptive learning as a governing set of principles is not in their repetoire.
They equate bullying for strong management. Graciousness is about good governance and they don't feel they need nor do they know about either.
Hey Bob - how gracious was Joe Clark throughout his career?
ReplyDeleteSilent response? Thought so. 'Nuff sed.
As for the kool aid, Ken, Joe has many flavors - all which was served to the people who assisted him in his atempt to make the conservative movement into a second liberal party, something you clearly support.
Shame.
You know, it really bugs me when some people today can only equate conservatism only with the neo-conservative, Republican variety that we've seen crash and burn in the US and Australia.
ReplyDeleteWe too quickly forget that traditional Toryism in Canada and the UK was not about the bottom line. Tory values have long been social harmony, concern over the welfare of the entire body social and body politic, uplift of the impoverished, community engagement, and respect for culture and heritage - these are classical Tory values.
Penny pinching, marginalizing opposition groups, overzealous tax cuts, making money for the sake of making money, allowing the elite to consolidate power without regard for greater society – this is neo-conservatism at its worst.
Rt. Hon. Clark is a quintessential Canadian Progressive Conservative. He's a man of great integrity and intelligence with a sharp mind for compassionate governance and sound public policy. He may not be the slickest guy or the most conniving politician, but that's exactly Ken's point! We need fewer politicians and backroom players in this country and more statesmen and legislators of character.
Taking pot shots at Dion; waffling on Middle Eastern foreign policy; alienating China; and cutting funding to culture, status of women, and the court challenges program is not good governance, and is absolutely antithetical to moderate progressive conservative values and policy.
Sean
You forget that it was the UK who supported the liberation of Iraq. There goes your theory.
ReplyDeleteAnon - it was a Labour UK government suported Bush and not a Tory UK government. That Labour UK government is about to lose the next election now as a result of this policy on Iraq.
ReplyDeleteGood example of progressive politics...NOT!
My comments relative to "waffling on Middle Eastern politics" refer to the CPC government's poor handling of Canada's position on the 2006 Lebanon War. Then Foreign Minister MacKay's acrimonious approach and bellicose comments enraged Muslims and Arabs, and frankly, the government's decision to support the Bush administration's initial refusal to support a UN-brokered ceasefire meant that more civilians would die.
ReplyDeleteIt's downright wrong for a former Prime Minister to criticize a sitting one and that's what Joseph Clark has just done today. He deserves no honour. Shame.
ReplyDeleteIn the UK, Labour set aside politics and did what was right: support freedom, liberty, and justice in liberating Iraq.
ReplyDeleteOh and by the way, most UK conservative MP's were onside, further showing bipartisan support for the right thing to do.
Anon @ 8:38 - read the 9/11 Commission and see why Bush ought to be impeached over the lies and deceit he, Cheney and Rumsfeld perpetrated over justifying invading Iraq.
ReplyDeleteGet your head out of the Bush Republican rectum and breath in some real freedom.
Anon @ 8:36 - another cowardly anonymous citizen whimpering wantonly from the margins of society.
ReplyDelete