llama66 llama66:
To me Harper was a modern day Diefenbaker, great opposition leader crummy PM. Only I too thought Harper did far better as a minority pm. Once he got a Majority he totally let the voting public down.
I find it really curious how both so many of people on this thread agree that Harper's performance went downhill once he got a majority government, including me. Ironically, he performed better with the Opposition keeping him on a leash.
Incidentally, as I've said elsewhere Stephen Harper is the poor man's John Diefenbaker. Both men accomplished a lot of good on various bread-and-butter issues (Diefenbaker nailed it on agricultural reform, gave us our first human rights legislation, opened up new markets for Canadian agriculture, gave Indigenous people the right to vote without abandoning their Treaty rights or status, instituted a colour-blind immigration policy) but they both failed in their larger, long-term goals.
The key difference is that Diefenbaker's failures, such as they were, didn't really come back to haunt Canada the way I think Harper's failures will. We're no further ahead in getting pipelines built, relations with our Indigenous peoples are as polarized as ever, Parliament's role in keeping governments more accountable is even more debased, our tax system is even more of a mess, and the Senate is still a dog's breakfast, as Roger Gibbins and Loleen Berdahl once put it.
And no, I don't know if Justin Trudeau is capable of fixing all this. He may have inherited Pierre's charisma, but I have yet to really see him display Pierre's intellect.