Sheila Copps: Inexperienced PM spoke too soon

[tuvor]

(Well, she doesn't use the term 'control freak,' but here's an excerpt from the article for which I posted a teaser yesterday.)

Harper's vocal support for the attacks that later resulted in the deaths of several Canadians plants him squarely in the middle of a self-inflicted political nightmare. Where was the Prime Minister's compassion when it came to the Canadian loss of life? Couple his steely response with images of angry, stranded fellow citizens, and you have a recipe for political trouble with a capital T.

Canada's inept evacuation strategy will be displaced by news of feel-good reunions. Harper's Airbus detour to rescue stranded Canadians struck a positive chord with most Canadians, who reasonably believe our government is making the best of a bad situation.

But more disturbing is the reason behind this sorry mess.

Command and control by the Prime Minister's Office appears to have hampered evacuation efforts and sorely tested the patience of the bureaucracy. Previous complaints about Harper's insular style have largely fallen on deaf ears but this time his penchant for control could prove costly.

Some media reports point the finger of delay directly at the PMO. Foreign affairs sources claim the evacuation plans were sitting on the PM's desk for more than 24 hours without any response. Communications trumped evacuation as officials on the ground were awaiting instructions from Ottawa.

http://torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Copps_Sheila/2006/07/23/1698110.html

[Spazito]

1. Good article, overall, but I must comment on a key part....

and that is her continued reference to harper's mistake being to micro-manage:

"If Harper has any chance of turning this situation around, he must abandon his controlling style. It is one thing to be a decisive, action-oriented leader. It is another to micro-manage the activities of cabinet ministers and those public servants who have more experience in the field than their political masters."

What world did she live in when she seems to only see that aspect of harper and also seems to think it is a transitory personality flaw? He has ALWAYS been an arrogant control freak, ALWAYS, he ALWAYS will be.

[liberalhistorian]

2. Forgive this question from a non-Canadian,

but I'm really curious as to how Harper was ever elected in the first place? He seems so antithetical to the way Canadians are in general, and too much of a Bushbot.

[Spazito]

3. I can only give you my perspective....

Canadians were:

tired of the Liberal scandal, it had to do with contracts for media communication friends in Quebec right after the last Quebec referendum on separation. In some cases, some of the money ended back in the Quebec Liberal campaign funds.

tired of the arrogance the Liberal party was showing after having been in power for 13 1/2 years

wanted to slap the Liberals down

Many Canadians who would normally vote Liberal parked their votes with the NDP party as a protest vote, some, enough voted for harper's party and some just stayed home.

We were just smart enough not to give him a majority government so he doesn't have a free hand and his government can, technically, fall at any time.

During the last campaign, harper managed to fool just enough people that he wasn't from the old bigoted, racist former Reform party member but a cool, calm, collected "good" New Conservative (the newest name for the old Reform party.


I am sure others will add their perspectives as well. I hope this helps to answer your question.

[Jazz2006]

4. Deja vu....

Here's a previous thread that somewhat addresses your question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=190&topic_id=15186