"The last leader of a developed country to follow the Bush doctrine"

Thus, with a cold lack of originality, Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, was described by Jack Layton the leader of the NDP, in a transparent effort to link the Canadian Prime Minister to George Bush. Layton's strategy was such a hit, the leader's of Canada's other political parties have been tripping over each other to land the latest quip linking the two North American conservatives together.

However, what passes for comedy amongst the chattering classes rarely strikes the same chord with voters. It is safe to say that hell will freeze over before Canadians elect anything that resembles George Bush, and that standard applies to Prime Minister Harper. Indeed, the only similarity the two men share is being right of centre. Harper has kept the off-putting and polarising hard right in his party in check since he has been leader. Bush, on the other hand, let them run riot in his. Harper has demonstrated a committment to the war in Afghanistan, where Canada is ably shouldering a burden many its NATO allies are loath to consider, but he could hardly be described as a military adventurer (indeed Afghanistan is a legacy of the pervious liberal government). The merits and demerits of Bush's foreign policy are not up for discussion here, but suffice it to say that comparisons between Bush and Harper on this front are weak. Though Harper has tried to trim regulation in Canada, the financial institutions there are healthy, on the surface level at least, and the Commonwealth member is ably trudging through the credit crunch. The US has lost an inconceivable number of jobs this year, where as over 100,000 jobs were created in Canada last month.

Harper will surely score a rout then in today's election? Apparently not. He has clearly run the country competently, yet true political popularity evades him. He has picked needless fights in this election campaign- one in particular over the arts may have cost him dearly in Quebec- and he has foundered on his strong suit, the economy, as polling day beckoned.

Nevertheless, he remains not just the only viable choice for Prime Minister, he is certainly the right choice. On the basis of Canada's current economic performance alone, he deserves re-election. The Harper government received a string of endorsements from national newspapers (the highlights of which are here), a reality which reflects its solid performance. As the Economist put it: "In what is the first credit-crunch election in a big Western country, Mr Harper’s ejection would set a dispiriting precedent that panic plays better politically than prudence." The Ottawa Citizen too was on the mark: "There are no Obama-esque promises to repair the world. But Mr. Harper offers the steadiest hand and clearest judgment to steer Canada through the rough waters that lie ahead.” This summarises the situation neatly. Harper offers wise and solid stewardship in an age of turmoil. But please do not expect any tingling feeling to shoot up your legs.


That Canadians would dethrone Harper, while doing so well in such chaotic times, would be a masochistic move. Reasonably, polls suggest that outcome to be unlikely. Harper is on course for re-election with a stronger minority government, but it is most probable that the Conservatives will be deprived of the much sought-after majority.

So are the liberal North Americans on the verge of re-electing Bush II? Despite the best efforts of other politicians to frame it that way, not quite. It would seem that Canadians are more clued in to Harper's quips than those of Layton or Dion. The Prime Minister remarked recently, "look the other guys keep talking gloom and doom, talking about recession, they've got the policies that will make it happen."

That should be enough to see him returned as Prime Minister.