Extract from The Guardian website:
Carbon tax, refugees, economics: the Canadian and Australian governments have been reading closely from the same page
It was early March, 2013. Former Australian prime minister John
Howard took the stage in a cavernous convention hall in Ottawa. “Can I
start by saying you have no reason to be concerned about the state of
conservatism in this country,” he told the crowd of Canadian conservatives
who’d gathered for the Manning Centre’s annual networking conference.
“I can’t find a better conservative leader anywhere in the world than
[Canadian prime minister] Stephen Harper. I really can’t.”
One wonders whether Howard would say the same thing now. Not because Harper’s recent domestic scandal has called into question the purity of his party’s convictions, the increasing centralisation of power in his office, and his own leadership qualities, but because he now has what many consider an ideological body-double Down Under. But as much as Canada’s Conservative party membership may love to hear how similar they are to their Australian cousins, it might be one key difference that matters most in the long run.
Perhaps not since Harper recited one of Howard’s speeches verbatim, without credit, in the House of Commons, have the Canadian and Australian governments been reading so closely from the same page. The two nations were jointly responsible for blocking a Commonwealth initiative to establish a climate fund for poor nations in November; Abbott has, as Harper did, promised to squash asylum seekers landing ashore by boat from Asia; and Abbott’s platform carried the promise of further mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes. The Harper government has already implemented the same for some sexual and drug offences.
So when Abbott’s government killed the Australian carbon tax, it was little surprise that the loudest cheer came from Ottawa. The prime minister’s parliamentary secretary, Paul Calandra, told the House that Canada “applauds” the decision, and that Abbott’s move “sends an important message.” Which is true for a few reasons.
It was important for the Conservative government for purely rhetorical uses. It provided fresh fodder for a tired, farcical talking point against Canada’s opposition New Democrats, who the government alleges would implement something similar if ever given power.
Also important: it clearly showed the Harper Conservatives have a staunch ideological ally – finally.
The fact that the two parties and leaders are allies isn’t a total shock. The parallels between Abbott and Harper were easily drawn months ago. Both are economists. Both are young. Both were grown into leaders after long-term grassroots participation in conservatism. And just as easily linked are the messaging strategies, borne from continued and very close relationship between the Canadian Conservative and Australian Liberal parties. Abbott’s election night promise of guaranteeing a government “that is competent, that is trustworthy, and which purposefully and steadfastly and methodically sets about delivering on our commitments,” would sound nice (and familiar) to Harper’s “strong, stable, national Conservative majority government.”
And Conservatives will tell you the Liberals have recently turned to Harper and his team for guidance, and found a very welcoming ear. They had to return the favour, after all. Earlier this decade key figures within the Conservative party like strategic planner Patrick Muttart, were studying Australia’s successes – particularly Howard’s ability to covet the working- and middle-class. They adopted and adapted aspects of it to eventual success. That’s useful for both sides, if only to do what Calandra did and justify each other’s existence and continued power.
But maybe most interestingly, Abbott’s decision provides an important message for Canada’s grassroots conservatives, if they want to hear it.
Harper’s current troubles have come since Conservative senator Mike Duffy was found to have incorrectly billed taxpayers for living and travel expenses and that, to rectify the imbalance, Harper’s then-chief of staff offered to pay it out of his own pocket. The police also allege that other member’s of Harper’s inner circle knew of the payment and coached Duffy to instead tell the public a different story. Harper has claimed ignorance of the entire affair, but it has severely damaged his reputation as an incorruptible straight-shooter and a no-nonsense manager – the kind of image Abbott is also trying to form despite an expenses row of his own.
But here, there is one key difference between the two. Abbott leads a group of MPs that can get rid of him; Harper leads a group of MPs who cannot, as he – like all Canadian political leaders – is instead chosen by the party membership. However, coming down the pike is a bill from a backbench Conservative MP that aims, in part, to change that, and return that power to the base. It could prove crucial.
“The most important thing always in politics is to stand for something,” Howard said in March. “And once a government looks as though it doesn’t stand for something and has lost its way philosophically, it’s only a matter of time before the public vote it out.”
One wonders whether Howard would say the same thing now. Not because Harper’s recent domestic scandal has called into question the purity of his party’s convictions, the increasing centralisation of power in his office, and his own leadership qualities, but because he now has what many consider an ideological body-double Down Under. But as much as Canada’s Conservative party membership may love to hear how similar they are to their Australian cousins, it might be one key difference that matters most in the long run.
Perhaps not since Harper recited one of Howard’s speeches verbatim, without credit, in the House of Commons, have the Canadian and Australian governments been reading so closely from the same page. The two nations were jointly responsible for blocking a Commonwealth initiative to establish a climate fund for poor nations in November; Abbott has, as Harper did, promised to squash asylum seekers landing ashore by boat from Asia; and Abbott’s platform carried the promise of further mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes. The Harper government has already implemented the same for some sexual and drug offences.
So when Abbott’s government killed the Australian carbon tax, it was little surprise that the loudest cheer came from Ottawa. The prime minister’s parliamentary secretary, Paul Calandra, told the House that Canada “applauds” the decision, and that Abbott’s move “sends an important message.” Which is true for a few reasons.
It was important for the Conservative government for purely rhetorical uses. It provided fresh fodder for a tired, farcical talking point against Canada’s opposition New Democrats, who the government alleges would implement something similar if ever given power.
Also important: it clearly showed the Harper Conservatives have a staunch ideological ally – finally.
The fact that the two parties and leaders are allies isn’t a total shock. The parallels between Abbott and Harper were easily drawn months ago. Both are economists. Both are young. Both were grown into leaders after long-term grassroots participation in conservatism. And just as easily linked are the messaging strategies, borne from continued and very close relationship between the Canadian Conservative and Australian Liberal parties. Abbott’s election night promise of guaranteeing a government “that is competent, that is trustworthy, and which purposefully and steadfastly and methodically sets about delivering on our commitments,” would sound nice (and familiar) to Harper’s “strong, stable, national Conservative majority government.”
And Conservatives will tell you the Liberals have recently turned to Harper and his team for guidance, and found a very welcoming ear. They had to return the favour, after all. Earlier this decade key figures within the Conservative party like strategic planner Patrick Muttart, were studying Australia’s successes – particularly Howard’s ability to covet the working- and middle-class. They adopted and adapted aspects of it to eventual success. That’s useful for both sides, if only to do what Calandra did and justify each other’s existence and continued power.
But maybe most interestingly, Abbott’s decision provides an important message for Canada’s grassroots conservatives, if they want to hear it.
Harper’s current troubles have come since Conservative senator Mike Duffy was found to have incorrectly billed taxpayers for living and travel expenses and that, to rectify the imbalance, Harper’s then-chief of staff offered to pay it out of his own pocket. The police also allege that other member’s of Harper’s inner circle knew of the payment and coached Duffy to instead tell the public a different story. Harper has claimed ignorance of the entire affair, but it has severely damaged his reputation as an incorruptible straight-shooter and a no-nonsense manager – the kind of image Abbott is also trying to form despite an expenses row of his own.
But here, there is one key difference between the two. Abbott leads a group of MPs that can get rid of him; Harper leads a group of MPs who cannot, as he – like all Canadian political leaders – is instead chosen by the party membership. However, coming down the pike is a bill from a backbench Conservative MP that aims, in part, to change that, and return that power to the base. It could prove crucial.
“The most important thing always in politics is to stand for something,” Howard said in March. “And once a government looks as though it doesn’t stand for something and has lost its way philosophically, it’s only a matter of time before the public vote it out.”
No comments:
Post a Comment