There was a great column in The Star yesterday: The Prime Minister who Would be President. It sheds a lot of light on to what appears to be PM Steve's thinking.

(eyes rolling again)

I can't even begin to imagine how stunningly moronic an article that begins with:

<blockquote>
Does Harper really get it? Canadians didn't elect him, the voters of his riding did. He is the leader of his party and the Prime Minister, but we don't want a president, writes Arthur Haberman
</blockquote>

We did elect him PM: that's how we do it. What a stupid dipshit (Haberman, that is).

I am constantly baffled by a press that claims an assertive Prime Minister is trying to be Presidential. It should be the other way round. As heads of both the Executive and Legislative branches of government, Prime Ministers already have far more power than an American President (admittedly, in a much smaller pond... these things are relative).

Excellent point from the Flea: President's, particularly the current, who attempt to assert both their own powers and those of Congress are in fact trying to gain the power that a PM in Canada or Britain already holds.

In reference to the original post, particularly the Ibbitson point: where is the line between hypocrisy and changing one's mind?

I think that we have to remember that the Prime Minister may have access to more powers but he is accountable to his caucus in the legislative branch - something a President does not have to face unless, apparently, he kisses an intern. That makes him much weaker on a practical basis. Plus, Harper's chosen majesterial approach (Presidential is too low-brow) will one day be the wedge even if he is the second coming he believes he is.<p>But Matt's last sentence is the real one here. I may not have voted for the guy and can forecast his downfall with soe certainty already but Ibbitson's flip-floppery may best even Harper's.

<blockquote>
In reference to the original post, particularly the Ibbitson point: where is the line between hypocrisy and changing one's mind?
</blockquote>

An election platform?

I have to say, Harper's strategy of cutting out the press may be genius, if he can get a few friendly national voices on his side. From people like Ibbitson, Simpson or the CBC staff, he's never going to get a fair break and they will always inflate trivialities to national crisii.

"I think that we have to remember that the Prime Minister may have access to more powers but he is accountable to his caucus in the legislative branch - something a President does not have to face unless, apparently, he kisses an intern."

Accountability is nice in theory though in practice there are dozens of instances from Thatcher to Chretien to Howard that bely the point. Even a Prime Minister managing a minority government has far more power than an American President. The forthcoming show down over child care is only likely to underline the point.

I think it is the President's dual role as chief executive and head of state that confuses the issue. If our current Prime Minister starts to associate himself with the pomp that attends the President as head of state we will see something majestic. Otherwise I am not "getting" your "point."

I play ping-pong with Flea. I counter: Klein, Chretien, Savage. Each brought to an early demise by their followers. Harper's main strength is the weakness of the opposition at the moment and even that may not be enough to overcome the wrong-headedness of the great popcorn money give-away. His air triumphal (such as dismissing the press and tradition with the "it's a constitutional thing") will be his undoing: pompous in the pomp personal. I am very much as a minor prophet on this I know but heed ye my words! Vanity is a great leveller as he shall learn.<p>And would it be belibelous to suggest it is "belie" - though someone with my terrible spelling should never point priggish digits. I merely inquire.

I'm not sure, Alan.

Maybe I'm not paying attention, but I certainly don't see Harper as being any more pompous or arrogant than the average prime minister. Certainly not any more so than Chretien in Calgary saying, "I put pepper on my plate," or Mulroney at Meech or with Reagan, or Borden abandoning the country for Versailles, though I suppose he at least had the excuse of a World War.

As for the opposition being weak, perhaps it is true, but has there ever been a time when we haven't percieved of the oppostion as weak except when on the verge of forming a government? Weak opposition seemed the mantra for most of the 90's. I don't recal Turner's Liberals doing much against Mulroney, though I'm mostly too young to remember. As far as recent history seems concerned, Jack's NDP budget and the petulant shutting down of Parliament last year seem to be abberations.

Has there ever been a recent time with a combined strong government and strong opposition? There is a large gap in my knowledge of parliamentary history between where my formal studying ends and where my practical memory begins, about 1919-1988.

That's what I get for thinking of "belying" as a word that could be safely castrated.

Belay that castration, sir!<p>

Matt, I would turn the question around. Has there ever been a 30-short minority perceived to be so mighty? Why? The specific combination of a under-funded leaderless Liberal Party, a weak separatist movement and an ascendant NDP. It's like frikking Holland out there!

I note in passing Andrew's noting in passing.

PS - nice to see Harper hoist the straw man. Classic. Mindless - but classic governing party strategy. So nice to see we have moved in to a new era.

Another day, another chamge of heart:<blockquote class="smalltext">The Conservative government is dipping into last year's budget surplus for $3.3-billion, the bulk of which is going to the provinces under a controversial measure the Tories fervently fought while in opposition. The money, earmarked for public transit, low-income housing, post-secondary education and aboriginals, was quietly negotiated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government last month, just days before a deadline would have forced the government to apply the cash to paying down the federal debt instead.</blockquote>

And, oddly, this.

And another change of heart concurrent with the change of desk:<blockquote class="smalltext">The Conservative government is moving to ban the release of prime ministerial agendas, a surprising change of heart after fighting the Liberals for the documents for years. Government lawyers told Information Commissioner John Reid's office Friday that they intended to proceed with a Federal Court case over the prime minister's agendas, as well as those of other cabinet ministers.</blockquote>