Canadian PM Stephen Harper renames government after himself

I don't think you two understand how low his reputation is here.

I do. I'm Canadian, remember? I just know he isn't going to leave office anytime soon unless he really messes up. So far, he hasn't done that, but there's still time.

If you're talking about Bush, again, I know. I've done a bit of reading on George W Bush, though; he's a Magnificent Bastard through and through. I won't deny that he did make enormous mistakes while in office, though. Being President isn't an easy job, folks.

edited 23rd Sep '11 10:06:25 PM by tropetown

Sorry, I forgot. Put it in your location!

Mabe it's Toronto.

Can someone list all of the bad decisions Harper made as PM?

I can't.

He's done an okay job, which is really what the basic people ask of a Prime Minister. The Liberals bombed because of their increasingly atrocious track record, and their ad campaign of "it's time for a change" damaged them as well.

increasingly atrocious track record

Er? With leaders, maybe.

Lack of a charismatic candidate bombed the Liberal support.

As for Harper himself:

• Poor handling of mortgage and housing bubble, he wanted Canada to join in the subprime mess despite warnings (has since ignored that position)
• He wanted to go into Iraq but has since recanted his support for that
• He keeps trying to be tough on crime, despite falling crime rate over the past decade (his defence is that the statistics are lying because... I guess it doesn't agree with his policy?)
• He issued a general squelch order on all of Canada's scientists working for the government
• Leaked security documents to a biker gang
• Lost our UN security council seat to try to support doomed pro-gun legislation
• Got our trade ties cut and a free military base eliminated in UAE

I think he enjoys something around 30-40% support in Canada.

Saying he's Bush implies something much worse, he's not THAT bad. As for the Liberal's "increasingly atrocious track record", was about scandals and corruption. Their handling of the economy has been unprecedented (cut the national debt in half). Considering that the Tories are now seemingly getting embroiled in weekly scandals, I'm sure Tory voters basically got what they wished for... out with the old corrupt regime, in with the new corrupt regime. I think Tories have already far surpassed the ad scandal that cost Canada around 100 million dollars in corruption. The g8/g20 summit corruption spending and misappropriation of funds has already cost us a crap ton of money.

I give him some slack on the economy and only judge his actions, since the economic downturn wasn't his fault.

As for the crime bill... don't get me started. It should be called "Make our justice system fail like USA Act". He just tabled it but at least in Canadian legislation you can technically vote down particular pieces of it without killing the whole legislation, which does allow some leg room for Parliament to reduce the crime bill somewhat. We'll have to spend 10 years after this fixing our justice system after this shit gets pushed through.

edited 23rd Sep '11 10:29:21 PM by breadloaf

How many times has he bee re-elected? Thrice?

How good are the chances of Harper getting a fourth, fifth or sixth term?

Pretty damn good, if he doesn't screw up in a big enough way. Of course, if another party manages to get someone sufficiently charismatic to run against him, he could see an end to that.

edited 23rd Sep '11 10:45:01 PM by tropetown

I guess it depends if he gets into a big enough scandal. Things like his Defence Minister flying in a Challenger jet to get to a lobster fest won't win him any points, but it is unlikely to really turn heads from the tory-support camps. See actually, he's in both a better but riskier position. Now that he has a majority government, and has had 2 previous minority regimes, he cannot blame anything on a previous whatever. It's not possible... or at least I don't think enough Canadians are gullible enough for that.

So if the economy tanks under his watch now, he'll take full blame for it.

American Presidents can only be elected twice; Franklin Roosevelt had three full terms of four years each, and died a year into his fourth. The law restricting it into two terms was made after his death by the Republican-controlled Congress at the time.

How is it like for the Canadian Prime Minister?

Unlimited. A Canadian Prime Minister could theoretically be elected until he dies.

How many years per term can a Canadian PM have?

Moreover, given his current track record, do you think he can get re-elected into a 6th term?

The maximum years per term is five, the usual is four, but Prime Ministers can technically call elections at any time. So can the rest of Parliament in a minority government, if there's a vote of non-confidence.

As for whether or not he'd hit a 6th term, only time will tell. No Prime Minister has ever done that consecutively, and only one has ever done that at all in Canadian history.

Sounds rather autocratic, though not quite as bad since the Prime Minister usually has restrictions imposed by Parliament, right?

Who was elected to a 6th term?

William Lyon Mackenzie King; he was Prime Minister during half of the Depression, and all throughout World War II.

I'm sure there are restrictions, though I'm not too well-read on the Canadian electoral process. However, I do know that Canadians don't usually like being taken to the polls too often, as many of us see it as a huge waste of taxpayer money. Because of this, calling an election too early isn't something that Prime Ministers would do unless they were 100% sure they were going to benefit.

edited 24th Sep '11 12:02:53 AM by tropetown

We'll see what happens, considering that Harper is basically the Canadian equivalent to a generic Republican.

Depends how you define autocratic. There's no limitations because it is a parliamentary system and we've a steady monarch (the Queen of Canada). Restrictions on term limits don't make sense because a PM is just an MP (actually doesn't even have to be an MP but tradition has it as the leader of the winning party). To put that into perspective, it would be like saying you want to limit the number of years a man can serve as a House Representative. The limitations on the Prime Minister is what you'd expect to be there for any western democracy; a constitution. However, Canada relies heavily on tradition as well, which Harper broke several times, but voters never punished him for it (at least not significantly), so I guess the limitations are only as powerful as the electorate makes them.

Technically, the Prime Minister is far more powerful than a US president because he has the power to appoint/fire a lot of the bureaucracy. Tradition puts many at arms-length, but Harper has shown that he can fire the head of nuclear safety with the public agreeing despite risking a nuclear accident. I'd lay the blame at the feet of the Canadian voters though, rather the system.

edited 24th Sep '11 12:21:14 AM by breadloaf

As would I, though if he hasn't monumentally screwed the country up, I can't see a good reason to get rid of him. Canadians don't care about what the government does, because Bread and Circuses is in full effect here. As long as we can still eat, and be entertained, most Canadians won't really care about what their government gets up to. This is because Canada doesn't really have any hot-button issues that would stir up a lot of controversy, like the US; it probably also helps that political decisions are rarely framed as a religious issue, as well.

edited 24th Sep '11 12:24:28 AM by tropetown

I can understand Canadian politics, thanks to our similar system of government!

...

Anyway, Harper seems like a guy that's done a lot of wrong things, but not enough wrong things to get him out of power, right?

How long has he been in power for?

I just have to ask, do any of you want another party in charge, and if so why?

I honestly don't mind if the Conservatives remain in power. The country is in pretty good shape as is; as long as Harper does nothing to ruin that, I'll be fine. I wouldn't mind having the NDP in power, either, but the NDP has never been in charge of the country, and they actually seem to have genuinely good intentions. Well intentioned, but inexperienced political leaders tend to do a lot of damage, I've realized.

Exactly.

Since 2006.

edited 24th Sep '11 2:50:21 AM by tropetown

I prefer a switch over a Liberal party with NDP oppositions, with slow Green gains until they replace the tories. Green policies have been fiscally conservative, socially liberal and the only thing I don't like about them is some of their environmental policy (specifically energy).

2006?!

Actually, I'm not really surprised.

Blair lasted from 1997-2007, and he became as unpopular as Harper seems now.

That's a better analogy.

Harper is a Conservative Blair.