Scan barcode
canadajanes's review
5.0
It got me reading and thinking a lot more about Canadian politics, and getting the reader further engaged in the subject is the best thing a non-fiction book can hope for.
oceanwader's review against another edition
5.0
I have read journalist Paul Wells' political writings posted online and those written for Maclean's Magazine with fair regularity. Therefore, I had become accustomed to expecting prose that made dry, political topics easier (juicier?) to swallow. Even so, I had not expected a 448-page book on Canada's difficult-to-know, insistently-beige 22nd Prime Minister to be such a romp to read.
And it's not just a romp…. it's insightful. Wells explains actions by Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, which have baffled even the experts, let alone the rest of Canadians. For example:
In reading that, I had just learned something, and my persistent befuddlement regarding certain of Harpers' actions had lifted. From the outset, Harper has been determined to remake Canada into a conservative nation, to prevent Canadians from viewing the Liberal Party of Canada as the nation's 'natural governing party'. To, in fact, have us replace the Liberals with Conservatives as our default electoral option.
If you starve the beast - in this case the federal government - then ANY government led by ANY party, will have its hands tied in terms of what it can do. THAT is the point to so many of Harper's actions, as Wells had just made clear for me.
But let's get to the romp, to the funny side of politics, which Wells helpfully - and with seeming glee - brings to light. Consider, for example, how he reviews an exchange in December 2008, between Liberal Opposition Leader Stéphane Dion and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, during the daily farce we Canadians affectionately - or more, hopefully - refer to as Question Period.
Dion, together with NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe had just announced the day previously that they had entered into an agreement 1) to vote non-confidence in the Harper government and 2) to present to the Governor-General the constitutionally-viable option of the Liberals and NDP, together with support from the Bloc, forming a coalition government. The two sides, in other words, had FINALLY, after far too many false starts, met at the OK Corral. And the Dion-led Liberals had drawn the first gun. (About damn time, weary Canadians thought.)
This is the following day....
Scene: House of Commons. Question Period. Televised. All eyes on Dion. All eyes next on the Prime Minister.
Here's Wells:
Just about every paragraph of Wells' book reads like that. And because it does, because his humour and wit brings seemingly staid, static, boooorrring Canadian politics alive, Stephen Harper the man is made more knowable; and the actions of Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, are made more understandable. Not necessarily acceptable, but understandable.
Love Stephen Harper or hate him, cast him as milquetoast or charlatan, no Canadian - including those soon-to-be-electors in high school - should go without reading Paul Wells' The Longer I'm Prime Minister.
And it's not just a romp…. it's insightful. Wells explains actions by Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, which have baffled even the experts, let alone the rest of Canadians. For example:
Economists had mocked the GST reduction [from seven to five percent] as the worst possible tax cut because it did less than income-tax cuts to stimulate productivity. But that was not the point. The point was to get money out of Ottawa, to reduce surpluses and restrict the ability of the government - any government - to introduce elaborate new social programs. And it had to be hard to reverse without substantial political cost. Same for the $100 cheque per month per child under six. A government handing out those cheques couldn't run daycares too, and a government that cancelled those cheques would have hell on its hands.
In reading that, I had just learned something, and my persistent befuddlement regarding certain of Harpers' actions had lifted. From the outset, Harper has been determined to remake Canada into a conservative nation, to prevent Canadians from viewing the Liberal Party of Canada as the nation's 'natural governing party'. To, in fact, have us replace the Liberals with Conservatives as our default electoral option.
If you starve the beast - in this case the federal government - then ANY government led by ANY party, will have its hands tied in terms of what it can do. THAT is the point to so many of Harper's actions, as Wells had just made clear for me.
But let's get to the romp, to the funny side of politics, which Wells helpfully - and with seeming glee - brings to light. Consider, for example, how he reviews an exchange in December 2008, between Liberal Opposition Leader Stéphane Dion and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, during the daily farce we Canadians affectionately - or more, hopefully - refer to as Question Period.
Dion, together with NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe had just announced the day previously that they had entered into an agreement 1) to vote non-confidence in the Harper government and 2) to present to the Governor-General the constitutionally-viable option of the Liberals and NDP, together with support from the Bloc, forming a coalition government. The two sides, in other words, had FINALLY, after far too many false starts, met at the OK Corral. And the Dion-led Liberals had drawn the first gun. (About damn time, weary Canadians thought.)
This is the following day....
Scene: House of Commons. Question Period. Televised. All eyes on Dion. All eyes next on the Prime Minister.
Here's Wells:
So they all filed into the Commons and waited their turn, and Stéphane Dion stood up and put on his tiny perfect Stéphane Dion scowl, and asked his defiant Stéphane Dion question. He read from an old quote about how "the whole principle of our democracy is the government is supposed to be able to face the House of Commons any day on a vote." Failing to face a confidence test, he said, still reading the old blind quote, was "a violation of the fundamental constitutional principles of our democracy." And here came his question:
"Can the prime minister inform the House who said these words?"
Oooh, let me guess. It was Stephen Harper, right? Here was a favourite Dion tactic. Put your opponent's words to him. Make him face his contradictions. It was neat and clever and about five times too subtle for the moment at hand, because what Harper did was pull himself up to his full height, button his suit jacket, lean forward across the aisle of the Commons, and bite Dion's head clean off.
"Mr. Speaker, the highest principle of Canadian democracy is that if you want to be prime minister, you get your mandate from the Canadian people, not from Quebec separatists." This time [attractive, female Conservative MPs strategically placed within camera shot on benches behind the PM] Ablonczy and Guergis and Raitt behind him knew what to do [as they hadn't, notably, in an exchange days before], as did the rest of the Conservative caucus. They leapt to their feet as if prompted by cattle prods. A guttural roar went up from the applauding Conservatives. Lawrence Cannon, standing next to Harper, shouted a word that was probably supposed to be "Oui" but came out as if he'd suffered a back-alley appendectomy. "WAAAAAAAAEERRGH!"
Just about every paragraph of Wells' book reads like that. And because it does, because his humour and wit brings seemingly staid, static, boooorrring Canadian politics alive, Stephen Harper the man is made more knowable; and the actions of Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, are made more understandable. Not necessarily acceptable, but understandable.
Love Stephen Harper or hate him, cast him as milquetoast or charlatan, no Canadian - including those soon-to-be-electors in high school - should go without reading Paul Wells' The Longer I'm Prime Minister.
hjjansen's review
4.0
An interesting read, with lots of behind the scenes gossip, or as much as you can get from a PM as secretive as Stephen Harper. It combines a narrative with some insight into why Harper does what he does. A fair and balanced treatment that neither eulogized nor demonizes Harper.
More...