Monday, December 1, 2008

Harper did not receive a mandate from Canadians to lead Canada in difficult economic times

Sweater Man campaigning in Vancouver

The argument is desperately being advanced by Harper’s dwindling core of supporters that he received a mandate from Canadians to lead us in today’s difficult economic times. This is a patently absurd argument for reasons of Harper’s own creation, since Stephen Harper spent the entire period of the last election operating in a bubble where he refused to acknowledge the imminent reality of Canada’s economic situation. Think back to the weeks preceding October 14th in which we were repeatedly told that Canada was not in a deficit facing situation, that “if we were going to have a correction or a recession, it would have happened by now”, and he widely advised Canadians that “now’s a good time to invest”, where after the market fell by more than 22%.

How can Harper argue that he received a mandate to govern in difficult economic times, when he spent the entire election denying that very economic scenario?

To the extent that Harper believes he did receive a mandate to govern Canada in difficult times, then I don’t think what Canadians were looking for was a government that promptly embarked on a campaign of doing nothing and arguing that past stimulus would somehow supplant the need for stimulus today?


The Mound of Sound said...

Harper didn't receive a mandate, he deliberately avoided even seeking one.

Recall the timing of the election. End of summer, scandals all but forgotten. Ignore his own fixed date election law and spring a quick poll on an unwary opposition.

Snap elections are supposed to be a means of bringing some critical issue before the electorate for them to decide whose solution they prefer. Yet Harper presented neither issue nor solution. He was simply gaming the public for sheer personal advantage.

He didn't even attempt to contrive an issue. It wasn't until the final week of the campaign that he saw fit to unveil what he described as a "platform." It was nothing.

Then, having indulged his raw ambition and yet being denied a majority, he promised a consultative minority, another undertaking he ditched just as soon as he'd made it.

Where is Oliver Cromwell when we need him?

Anonymous said...

Harper has no mandate from the people to run the country. 64% of Canadians did not want him to be PM. The only reason he became prime minister is our stupid tradition to ask the party with the largest number of seats to form the governemnt. The problem is that we have no tradition of coalition governments. The Libs, the NDP and the Bloc have much in common particularly as regards social policies, environment, law and order, defence, foreign affairs, etc. It was said "ad nauseam" after the election that the split between the "left wing" parties would guarantee them to stay in the opposition. The reality is that they better represent the electorate and should be the preferred option in terms of forming the government. Harper has managed to unite the opposition parties and he should be congratulated for this service to the country! If thus coalition comes to power and lasts it will open a new chapter in Canadian parliamentary system that will help the process of forming more representative governments in the decades to come.

Anonymous said...

From the preamble of the Accord:

"a belief in the role of Government to act as a partner with Canadians and Quebecers."

You have already partitioned the country! This is the first government ever to have agreed to such a thing. Woe, Canada!

This is treasonous behaviour. Shame, shame, shame. Liberals will regret the day that they undermined our country for the sake of power.

JC Kelan

Sean Cummings said...

74% of Canadians voted for someone other than Stephane Dion to be Prime Minister. This is not going over well out west. We're hearing talk of "notwithstanding" all of a sudden on all coalition legislation.

Thought you should know.