I'd say that Harper has done well enough with the cards he's been dealt, if you include in said cards his own character. He really isn't meant to be a frontline politician -- he should have stayed a thinktank/backroom type, and probably would have preferred to, except for the disaster situation on the right in 2001.

Again, though, making it as a non-Liberal PM in Canada (or a re-elected Liberal one) is an accomplishment beyond the wildest dreams of most of us. As is surviving two budgets in a minority parliament with all his opponents to the left of him...

Ask yourselves this, too: are there any other figures on the Canadian political right whom you think could have done better in this situation? (Very tough question, b/c we don't really get to know our political figures well until they are put to the test.)

***

Anyway, we'll see what the Canadian people think after the next campaign. (Spring 2008? Fall 2009?)

I wonder what would happen were Preston Manning to reappear. Would the nation rally round someone who knows how to tell a decent joke at his own expense?

H'm.

Yes, there's a what-if. What if the right hadn't gone for perceived charisma with Day in 2000 and stuck it out with the one they'd come with?

My guess: somewhat better in English Canada -- Manning probably could have brought Ontario around, eventually -- but much worse in Quebec.

But yes, you're absolutely right -- Manning is probably the best standard for comparison in this case.

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who we on PEI would call a "rank Tory". We agreed that Harper's primary deficiency is his lack of likability. That aside, we further agreed that what he has done wrong is over-engagement in tactics and political games. The agenda he won the election with was fine: I think it appealed to most people and didn't chart a course for economic or constitutional ruination: cut GST, "fix" health care, etc.. I don't even remember them, but I think I would be fair to say that they achieved these goals. Having done that, Harper proceeded to play games with Quebec (a "nation in a united Canada"), tried to claim the Green agenda, took negative TV ad shots at Dion, sponsored a NASCAR team and generally tried to make the opposition look bad in parliament all to little positive effect for his government or the country. What he *should* have done instead after completing his early agenda was put the government on autopilot, played golf with Mulroney, gone to hockey games with Schwarzenegger, let Baird handle parliament and let his Quebec henchmen handle Quebec.

I think he was trying to do and end-run around the other parties by co-opting their ideas. Basically a retread of Jean Chretien's tactics for many years; outfox the opposition by stealing their platforms / policy prescriptions. Only in Harper's case it didn't quite pan out.

My advice is less poaching on the other guys' policy turf, and more articulation and consolidation of his own.

I do wonder why the man has done little to attract more support from the fence sitters. He has alienated some of the Myron Thompsons of his party (a party without cheer, paper hats or a fun guy who occasionally adds some lemon gin to the punchbowl I may add) yet did not do so in such a way as to drag in some of the moderates from elsewhere..

In the last month, I have been approached by two die hard Conservative friends of mine who have stated that they are actually looking to atract some Lib and former Lib moderates but like true political novices they gave up quickly without even trying hard. Sad because I am a keel-less ship politically of late searching for a port.

I don't think Harper has done badly in the sense that he has pretty much done the Liberal-lite thing as well as might be expected. He ran on a few simple (and unscary) ideas and implemented them for the most part. If he had stopped there he would have been a solid C+ Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, as other members of the group point out, he didn't stop. He got green, he put budgets through which increase expenditure, he did the "nation" jig with Quebec and stood sort of firm on Afghanistan and the Atlantic Accord.

His major error has, I think, been to entirely fail to outline a positive (conservative) vision for Canada.

Having governed for 18 months Harper could have called an election for a fresh mandate to push a fiscally conservative agenda. He could have said, with justice, "Hey, I can ride a two wheeler, time to take the training wheels off."

He didn't call that election and, sadly, has not articulated any vision - positive or conservative or even coherent - for Canada.

The only thing which keeps Harper afloat is that Dion, Layton and Duceppe (as well as Miss May) are not any better at the vision thing. Or the principle thing.

Which all may not matter simply because (other than Afghanistan) there are really no pressing issues in Canada. The Kyotoist claque has jumped the shark as the wheels come off the consensus, fiscal prudence has a low value in a low deficit, high revenue economy, the provinces are fighting about how much abundance they are to have, gays, abortions and pot have faded in importance; in a sense each of the parties and their leaders are free to ride which ever hobby horses their interest groups want them to. It simply does not matter.

I suppose a Whig interpretation of politics might suggest that we get the leaders the times demand. Thus, in the Bush era we've had Chrétien, Martin and Harper - Layton forever, Duceppe, Dion.

Apparently the times are less demanding than one might have thought.