The Longer I'm Prime Minister: Stephen Harper and Canada, 2006-

by Paul Allen Wells

WINNER 2014 – Ottawa Book Award for Non-Fiction

The definitive portrait of Stephen Harper in power by this country’s most trenchant, influential and surprising political commentator.
 
Oh, he won, but he won’t last. Oh, he may win again but he won’t get a majority. Oh, his trick bag is emptying fast, the ads are backfiring, the people are onto him, and soon his own party will turn on him. And let me tell you, it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy . . .

Despite a constant barrage of outrage and disbelief from his detractors, Stephen Harper is on his way to becoming one of Canada’s most significant prime ministers. He has already been in power longer than Lester B. Pearson and John Diefenbaker. By 2015, and the end of this majority term, he’ll have caught up to Brian Mulroney. No matter the ups and downs, the triumphs and the self-inflicted wounds, Harper has been moving to build the Canada he wants—the Canada a significant proportion of Canadian voters want or they wouldn’t have elected him three times. As Wells writes, “He could not win elections without widespread support in the land. . . . Which suggests that Harper has what every successful federal leader has needed to survive over a long stretch of a superior understanding of Canada.”

In The Longer I’m Prime Minister , Paul Wells explores just what Harper’s understanding of Canada is, and who he speaks for in the national conversation. He explains Harper not only to Harper supporters but also to readers who can’t believe he is still Canada’s prime minister. In this authoritative, engaging and sometimes deeply critical account of the man, Paul Wells also brings us an illuminating portrait of Canadian “glorious, a little dented, and free.”

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Canada, History, Biography

413 pages, Hardcover

First published October 22, 2013

Reviews

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Six stars. In a five-star environment. Dare I do it? Dare I? Yes. And if you doubt my five-star stinginess, check out my profile.

Not I'm not saying this will become the blockbuster hit of 2013, but for those interested in Canadian political reading, I just don't think you're going to find much better in print this side of the next federal election.

Paul Wells has avoided partisanship (so Tory detractors will inevitably decry him as an apologist) in what is the only general (i.e. I'm sure academic studies exist) review of the Harper Conservatives. The second chapter on the party's philosophical background puts into words for the first what many Conservative voters have only vaguely felt. The rest of the book convinces you of Wells' theses: Harper is an incrementalist; and is shifting the country right, or indeed, taking advantage of an already changing Canada in ways the other parties haven't picked up on yet. All while chronicling the last decade or so of Canadian politics.

And did I mention the wonderfully witty and snarky package? I shall sacrifice some time to re-reading.

Follow me on Twitter: @Dr_A_Taubman

[Ira Therebel · Rating 5 out of 5]

First I would like to say that I am not a Harper supporter and there will be world peace and pigs will fly before I vote conservative. So my rating of the book is not my rating of Harper and his party. At the same time for people who know me an my political views, I can reassure you that this is not a liberal biased, anti Harper book.

This is what Paul Wells said about his intentions when writing it: "One of my goals was to write a book about Harper that readers could enjoy no matter what they thought of him. I wasn’t sure it was possible, given how polarized perceptions of Harper are. But it seems to be working. ".

And yes, it indeed worked out. I can't say exactly the author's political views are based on the book. He seems to have respect for Harper but at the same time is critical of some of his actions, just as he has criticized his opposition.

I became interested in politics a few years after Harper's first election. So the beginning involved many new and eye opening things for me. The chapters involving more recent years was a very interesting review of the past.

I may not agree with everything Paul Wells thinks, but I really enjoyed the book and see his view. It shows to some extend why people voted for Harper and his goals and tactics to stay in power.

It is very refreshing to read a book on politics that is so neutral and informative. I am sure anyone interested in our country's political situation will appreciate it regardless of which party they support.

*I won this book in first reads giveaways in exchange for an honest review*

[Cheryl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Books on Canadian politics are depressing. This one further fuels my dismay, but nevertheless it is a surprisingly fun read. Dollops of backroom stories and anecdotes at least give some insights into the cold fish that is our prime minister.

[Chris Fenn · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating read. Whether you support or oppose Stephen Harper - this is an essential work for understanding the philosophy and tactics that drive the current government. Harper is a master at politics, grounding his every action in an unwavering and coherent political philosophy that borrows heavily from Gramscian theory - combined with cunning realpolitik that know how politics can work on the ground. Theory and practice united.

What you begin to learn is that everything you think about Stephen Harper was done on purpose. Lack of charm and grandeur....on purpose, no grand vision...on purpose. He knows that the only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time, slowly. Over time he has succeeded by knowing where is base is, how to speak to it consistently and build loyalty. He has, of course, made political error that have cost him - but he has be able to recover successfully.

At the end of the book I came to the deep understanding that Justin Trudeau will quite simply be eaten alive by the conservative machine. He has no idea how the language and conversation has shifted and how they have fundamentally changed the politics of Canada.

Paul Wells writes in an easy style, unpretentious, and infused with humour. Well done on all levels.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Wells has taken the time to offer a biography of the entity known as the Harper Government, from its in-utero conception after the small-c conservative merger in 2003, through to its birth after the 2006 election and the stages of its growth along the political landscape. Wells posits a keen and poignant argument; that Harper and the Conservatives will remain in power as long as they are faced with splintered or misled political opposition in the House of Commons. However, he adds in a somewhat subtle sub-theme, the Conservatives may also face their worst enemies when staring in the mirror. Espousing a belief long held on the Opposition benches, Harper and his team seek to bring true conservatism to the forefront, something that was muted during the Mulroney era. Wells presents some interesting takes into the rise of conservatism and how Harper uses nuances to push the idea forward, into the laps and lives of the electorate, while also showing the Conservatives to be the only true choice at the ballot box.

The book uses a powerful narrative to lay out the birth of the Conservative Party of Canada and its early battles with the hapless Martin Liberals who had recently finished a bloody coup from within. By slowly dismantling the Liberals and steamrolling through its two subsequent leaders, Dion and Ignatieff, the Conservatives moved from the opposition benches into the limelight, augmenting their seat count with each subsequent election. While it is the party's successes, many political scientists tend to personify the party by using the leader. Wells uses the book to do just that, on both sides of the aisle within the House, painting Harper out to be the genteel thinker with strong political instincts while the likes of Dion and Ignatieff are bumbling fools whose interest in power outshone their ability to reach it. Contrasting the Harper Government's governing power against the likes of some of Canada's recent strong governments, Harper has been able to stay the course without allowing the infighting that dismantled Chrétien and Mulroney along the way. His overarching premise, that until the Liberals (or NDP) can choose someone who can not only stand up to his record but also hold the reins long enough to show a viable alternative, Harper stands to remain the sole proprietor of 24 Sussex Drive until he chooses to hand over the keys to the next Conservative leader.

Wells makes the chronological development of the narrative work to his advantage. While some tales must leap around the calendar, he sells the idea of the ever-advancing juggernaut in fashion that is easily understood and how, over time, its development only got stronger. From Opposition party in 2004, through to two minorities in '06 and '08, Wells shows how Harper and the Conservatives learned and stumbled along the way, facing numerous enemies in their trek towards success. Wells takes the story behind the headlines and into the dirty parts of those harrowing days, adding the constitutional mini-crisis and quasi-campaign of December 2008, when Canada almost went to the polls for a second time in three months. This poignant narrative does illustrate the keen political entourage that Harper had with him to weather the storm, but also shows some of the ineptitude from within the Liberal camp. Perhaps Wells' underlying theme of no change without significant change shines through, though it will be interesting to see how the pendulum swings in 2015, with the NDP and Liberals led by men who have never taken a party into the electoral wars.

The book is no pedestal on which to raise Harper or his party, but does present a strong case for Conservative rule in Canada. It does, however, refuse to ignore the gaping holes found in the opposition benches up until 2011 and makes a strong argument that Canada may have finally ended its love affair with the Liberals, at least while they are led to the slaughterhouse by foolish ideologues. Wells does a fabulous job at laying out the facts, making the harsh realities plain for the reader, and lets history speak for itself. With strong use of other sources, academic research, and numerous interviews, Wells seeks to make Harper and his party out to be a strong option to continue their reign in Canada well into the future. It is up to Canadians, and strong opposition parties, to derail this alternative, should we wish to seek change. That said, Harper has paved the way for his own continued success.

Kudos, Mr. Wells for such an insightful and powerful book. I thoroughly enjoyed your clear arguments and developed arguments, which I can see would be beneficial to any politically-inclined reader ahead of the next General Election.

[Christopher Farrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

An extremely interesting look into Harper's mind. Wells' previous book (Right Side Up) went into detail on how Stephen Harper became to be. This book continues that story in an extremely interesting and well thought-out manner, and covers everything right up to the early stages of the Senate scandal. Highly recommended for any Canadian political junkie.

[Alexandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good and insightful analysis of our current PM, but boy what a frightful and scary view one gets!!!

My political bias obviously accounts for much of my reaction to this book, but it's certainly a pretty useful guide to those of us who hope he won't make it to the 10th anniversary...

[Ty Bradley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my favourite book I have ever read. Paul Wells is genius and crafts word like no other journalist. He sees things as they are, and isn't afraid to expose the hidden truths of Canadian politics. This is not an anti-Harper book or a pro-Harper book. It is the best book out there about the man who dominated Canada from 2006-2015. Wells shows all Harper's flaws and all his virtues, his contradictions and his adaptations. This is a portrait of a man, and a tale of how this man reflects the country he governed. This is not a comedy book, but I still laughed out loud incredibly often at Wells' witty remarks. I thought that this book could never live up to my favourite Macleans columns by Wells, but it is somehow even better than them. If anyone is interested in learning about Canadian politics, this is the book to start with. What an epic story, with so many quirks and turns.

[Joanne · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was interesting primarily to me because it gave really good insight into where Stephen Harper's political ideology came from, and why it is so entrenched. Rarely has there been a Canadian Prime Minister who is more detested by his opponents and simultaneously admired by his supporters. The evolution of his government was interesting to read about, especially the parts where he miscalculated or erred in understanding the country outside his own narrow sphere. It doesn't change my opinion of him or his party, but it gives me some understanding of who they are.

[Caroline Woodward · Rating 4 out of 5]

First a reader alert: do not read this book, The Longer I'm Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Canada 2006 just before sleeping. I usually love reading myself to sleep with a good book but this one gave me nightmares. This may not apply to you if you tend to believe Daddy Knows Best and that someone with stony, empty eyes is a Strong Leader who should Take Charge while Canadian citizens pass out for three decades.

That said, Paul Wells is a terrific journalist and writer who has a great sense of humour (considering his beat for MacLean's magazine, federal politics, it's either that or leap off the Bell Tower) and the ability to synthesize a staggering amount of research while moving the narrative forward in a compulsively readable fashion. The reader isn't weighed down with every documented conversation or pelted with a dizzying array of names dropping from great heights.

It's best read in the clear light of day and will confirm what most political junkies already know, that the Prime Minister is overly-controlling about all aspects of governance and especially his contact with media, and that his aim is, above all, to hang on to majority government power (which he currently does with only 39% of the vote). This means curtailing the colourful outbursts of wing-nuts from the Reform Party in the merged ranks of Red Tories, fusty regular Tories and Reformers who line-danced their way into power by peddling right-wing umbrage on everything that was was immoral and/or involved paying too many taxes during the 20th century. I was counting on them reminding the four minute voters, the ones who managed to get to the polls with the latest political ad in their uncritical minds, that the quality of federal legislation was dependent on a lot of whack-job seat-warmers on the Conservative side of the house. But that's lazy, if hopeful, thinking on my part. What's even more sickening is the account of smear tactics used against NDP leader, Jack Layton, and the Robo-calling fiasco which directed dithering voters to the wrong polling station in hopes of nullifying their vote. There are an awful lot of unethical mean little trolls working for the Conservatives in this country at all levels. And that goes for the "Liberals" in British Columbia as well, an unholy assortment of opportunists from God-only knows what political beliefs spectrum.

The recent announcement of a bunch of gerrymandered ridings (at least, I assume they are ridings with much-studied borders and prior voting patterns with this micro-managing PM in charge)will undoubtedly bear even more Conservative fruit. The progressives on the left'ish side of the House seriously need to consider strategic voting or else we citizens will not recognize this country as our home within a decade or two. This PM and our country will continue to be international pariahs where once we were honorable world citizens and some us wish to be a great deal more honorable than we ever were before in the areas of aboriginal, environmental, chronic homelessness/poverty, immigration criteria, and women's issues in this country.

Now I'm going to read some murder mysteries just to recover from the trauma of reading this book...I comfort myself by knowing that when Stephen Harper dies, and he will someday, as we all will, there will never be a funeral for him like the one Jack Layton had. I'm sure the PM was taking notes while he attended, stoney-eyed as ever, but even the Master Micro-Manager will never be able to command an outpouring of genuine affection, admiration and love. Consider the way that he/his underlings botched the G-8 meeting in Toronto several years ago, the one with police brutality and fake lighthouse and lake? The one where those of us watching television could not believe we were watching Canadians being corralled in our own civilized streets? There are certain issue of finesse far beyond the pedestrian power-hungry mind.

That he is highly disciplined, hard-working and true to his own beliefs is also undoubtedly true and this book is balanced in that the pros and cons of the PM's mind-set and approach are all handled in a transparently, even-handed way. I may not like what I read because I am a left-wing-leaning citizen but I feel I've read an entertaining, well-documented and honest appraisal.

[Graeme Waymark · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the best books I read in 2014 and perhaps one of less than one hand in number that are none fiction. In other words, except for history books, I rarely read non fiction, leaving that to media. In this case though, the history of a Prime Minister, is neither a biography nor an auto-biography or anything in between. It is a political science book that could as easily be title: Hegemony in Canada. But, knowing how few of us have either heard the word or fully understand it, the chances of it enticing a buyers market would be too slim to justify the title. On the other hand, I wondered whilst reading it how many readers would NOT have picked the book up thinking it was about Conservatism and the ilk of Harper and his 'cronies'. Thos people of course being of the type that don't just 'not vote' for persons representing a certain ideology, but for some emotional reason obtain the rough equivalent of an emotional hard on when seeing seeing a fat sheep in the fields! In other words, screw around with the words of a child in a playground, name calling 'them' that don't think like them. I linger on this metaphor only in that, in summary, the book is about this. Allow me to explain:

If we think of a free nation having a personality, a will, reason and psyche then it holds that another country could be different, even to extreme opposites in some aspects. Similarly it could be possible for elected parties in one country to swing from representing one ideology to another. The effects of these swings is that after a certain period of time there are: results, remnants, legacies, memories, polices, regulations, procedures and appointments. There is much more - left over from extended periods of governance by an ideology is a national identity. In some countries that identity can be transformed overnight. In Canada, it is generally thought that transformation is normally a process that takes a longer time than the norm. Some call our personality a 'liberal' personality (note the absence of the capital "L"), or a 'Center' one; a fence-sitter etc. This book talks of how we became as a nation what we are or were.

From what we were, we are slowly changing, posits Paul Wells. Referring to Stephen Harper there are no accounts of whether the ages of his kids or what bourbon he drinks, or sherry his wife does. I cannot recall if family was even discussed in a familial manner. The words were not about the man Stephen Harper, but about how has thought, (perhaps) or what he has attempted to do with his leadership of Canada. Paul Wells talks of gradual incrementalism. Simply, the longer Harper is Prime Minister, the longer we as citizens are subjected incremental changes in our behaviours, personality, etc. the easier it is for us to accept them and accept ourself. Left hanging is the question: "The longer we incrementally change as a nation, will we want to stay the course?"

[Alexander Kosoris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having read and thoroughly enjoyed Wells’ Maclean’s articles for a few years now, I always thought he was a Harper fan on the highest order, one who assumed the PM could do no wrong. I really don’t know why, given how even-handed his interviews always were with leaders of the other parties, and especially now, given how critical he is of the PM in The Longer I’m Prime Minister. It seems that Wells is less blinded by his love of a great man than he is intrigued by Harper’s continued success; in getting to the root causes of Harper’s longevity, Wells very clearly shows that it can’t just be attributed to luck, as many of the PM’s detractors seem to think. (Though, after being led along through Harper’s career in such a thoughtful manner, I really think that there were at least a few moments where the PM got quite lucky.)

This book really explains a lot about the train wreck that appears to be modern Canadian politics. Having not started following politics in any significant manner before the 2008 election and the coalition crisis that followed, I do remember snippets of what Wells discusses, but only as a passive observer who really didn’t understand what I was seeing at the time. Every action in federal politics from about 2006 on––and, most likely, quite some time before that––doesn’t really seem to be a measure of competence, but a seeming pile-up of incompetent actions, with the emerging victor merely injuring himself the least. Whether this is a measure of objective observation or merely the author’s snarky filter that the information passes through, I couldn’t really say.

Wells’ account of the rise of Mr. Harper and everything that happened behind the scenes is very interesting, hugely entertaining, completely non-partisan, and surprisingly scary. I couldn’t recommend The Longer I’m Prime Minister highly enough to anyone who has an interest in modern Canadian politics.

[Marie-Claire Pitre · Rating 4 out of 5]

L'auteur a une bonne plume. On y apprend qui est Harper, ses valeurs, et sa façon de procéder. Harper a connu la défaite à deux reprises avant de devenir le Premier Ministre du Canada. Au début des années 2000, dans des conférences, il disait qu'il voulait mettre fin au Well fare state = Canada. L'état providence. Il est intelligent, il sabre le long questionnaire de Statistique Canada pour couper l'herbe sous le pied des chercheurs. Je ne suis pas une fan de Harper. Ce livre m'a fait réaliser que Harper est un type intelligent, un prédateur qui reconnait lui même avoir peu d'ami, qui n'aime pas les controverses, qui a de la suite dans les idées et qui change le pays, une petite étape à la fois. Incremental. Il a été très chanceux en politique. Rappelons nous que les libéraux ont perdu de vue l'idée qu'ils avaient besoin d'un leader et ont plutôt donné ce poste à des penseurs, des philosophes : Dion et Ignatief ce qui a laissé la porte grande ouverte pour la droite, donc Harper. Rappelons nous également le décès de Jack Layton. Alors pour revenir à l'auteur, il est intéressant, irrévérencieux et parfois drôle. J'ai voulu lire ce livre pour mieux comprendre mon propre pays. J'avais l'impression que le Canada que j'ai connu dans mon enfance n'est plus là. Wells dit que oui, le Canada subsiste, il est un peu amoché, mais en gros, tout est pareil... ou presque. Terminé au mois d'avril 2014.

[Izabella · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not a political junkie. In fact, I'm probably more apolitical than anything else. My vote swings with each election and I'm seldom impressed with my options. So my 5-star rating, truly, is neither swayed by a partisan bias nor by a passion for politics. The book really is extremely good. It's hard to find a boring passage thanks to Wells' snarky delivery and myriad anecdotes. And the most interesting chapters, by far, describe the change in campaigning and approach to the electorate that has been demonstrated by the Conservatives. The other parties should take note of this shift, otherwise they have little to no chance of success in the upcoming elections. My intended follow-on read is "Shopping for Votes", which (I expect) will further the theme of how the Conservatives have successfully microtargeted demographic groups, effectively marketing the party brand to "consumers" of partisan messaging.

[Gordon Lyon · Rating 1 out of 5]

I found Paul Well's review of Stephen Harper's political career to date, an interesting read. It's a portrait that is painted from a liberal/leftist view point in which he makes a lot of assumptions and expresses many theories as to Stephen's motives and psyche. One can almost feel the resentment in his writings as to the fact that Stephen has figured out liberal motives and tactics and has been effective countering them. There is also a level of begrudging admiration expressed that he has been this successful and a hint jealousy that the liberal's have failed for decades to come up with anyone leader that has been so effective at governing the nation. If one is looking for a good left wing view of modern Canadian conservatism, I'd recommend this book.

[Frédérique · Rating 4 out of 5]

I devoured this book in a weekend. Wells has an informal and humorous tone that I like. I wish there was more about the impact of Harper's policies and whether he's been successful is moving the country rightward definitively. I think both Harperites and Harper-haters will find stuff they like in this book. It won't change anyone's mind.

[Stewart · Rating 5 out of 5]

A most insightful read, painting a fascinatingly detailed but objective inside look at the rise and age of Stephen Harper. Paul Wells writes with depth and humour, making for a most enjoyable read. A must-read for anyone involved in, affected by, or generally curious about Canadian politics; enjoy!

[Debbie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a bit frightening if our politicians serve to get re-elected rather than for any altruistic idea of serving the country. I'm even more cynical now.

[Wendell Hennan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Never comfortable with nor a fan of Stephen Harper, I chose to read this book to gain a better understanding of the man. Written with much humor, it was enjoyable, but it is not only a book about Stephen Harper but also of Stephane Dion, Thomas Mulcair, Jack Layton, Patrick Brazeau and every single other politician who played along side Stephen Harper, hence over 400 pages. Annoying that it could not have been written chronologically and in the end my opinion remains unchanged, self centered, closed, driven, and dishonest. The habitual flip flopping was a revelation. Disappointed that the story included more description of his first girlfriend in Calgary and their relationship that his wife, Lauren.

[Vlad · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is quick, snappy and easy enough to read which is a big plus for a subject as drab as Canadian political history. However, either through the author’s fault or my own, the fragmentary and anecdotal structure of the book make me come away from the book with not a lot actually learned - and Harper, who is meant to be the key subject of the book is used mainly as a driving theme in the background, so my view of him as a person still remain vague and fuzzy. The endless anecdotes of party staffers doing this that or other thing mostly go in one ear and out the other.

[Chrystal · Rating 5 out of 5]

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:

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.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pitch perfect. Dispassionate, deeply analytical, and a fantastic story. Anything that can make Canada fun to read is doing something right.

[Roger H · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting behind the scenes information. Also good at comparing positions taken by politicians and whether and why they sometime change.

[Steven Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Longer I'm Prime Minister: Stephen Harper and Canada, 2006- examines how Stephen Harper gained and maintained power and the philosophy behind his leadership. Stephen Harper has been the prime minister for nearly ten years now. His doom has been foretold by many. Several pundits, academics and political rivals saw the 2015 election as his Waterloo and it would be the end for him, but now we see in the polls that he has eked out a lead and seems in very little danger of total implosion.

Paull Wells, and others he cites in his book, describe Harper as an incrementalist. He has studied successful and failed prime ministers and come away with some conclusions. The first being that prime ministers who tackle big projects often destroy their own legacy, see Brian Mulroney and his constitutional gambits. Instead the longer one's party is in power and can hold it and make incremental changes towards their goals the safer the legacy is and the more assured a long hold on power is. Revolution isn't the goal, the goal is to progressively erode the state as defined by the Liberals.

This strategy has been part of the reason that Harper's detractors have gone nowhere. The allegations of a hidden agenda have never born fruit because he doesn't want to break his coalition with a bold, sweeping policy. This is an example Wells uses in the book: the Insite program came up for review, which is the clean needle exchange in Vancouver. Harper moved to shut down this pilot program. Under a Liberal or New Democratic prime minister it may have been made permanent, or the project expanded to Toronto and Montreal. The day-to-day decisions may matter more in the long run than the big sweeping agendas that can be undone with a few pieces of legislation.

Wells also dives into some of the intellectual and academic roots of Harperism. He suggests, for example, that Peter Brimelow's The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities have played a big role in shaping the ideas that move Stephen Harper and his allies. It's an interesting notion and Wells manages to successful support these intellectual threads with tangible evidence.

It is important to note, as Wells does, that among a segment of the population Stephen Harper is very popular. I certainly do not fit within that camp, nor do many of the people in my circle, but we're not supposed to. For many years we watched Harper build a coalition of voters to bring him a majority government, one step at a time. Incompetence by his opponents has helped make him the success he has today. Wells spends a great deal of time looking at the politics during the Harper years. The campaign missteps of his opponents has as much to do with his success as his own strategies.

The book concludes in 2013 with the 2015 election looming and already things look tricky. Wells suggests that if Harper looses power it will be because of his own missteps, as evidenced in the past. But for the first time he faces competent opposition, in the form of Thomas Mulcair and a popular Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau. Wells also comes to this point, Harper's vision for the future of Canada is limited. Incrementalism often means no grand strategy but it is not entirely clear what Mr. Harper would do with a second majority. Wells provides amble evidence that Harper will pursue policy goals, such as pipelines, wooing Quebec, or trade with China until obstacles become too numerous and he quits. If he wins a majority it is hard to know what Canada will look like in 2019 because it seems Harper doesn't have a vision for it despite what his critics and supporters say.

I really enjoyed this book. I believe it to be a fair analysis of the Harper's years in office and how he has exercised and held power. The prose is often witty, snarky and clever and weaves together the last ten years into a narrative that fits and frames them within context that is hard to see in the day-to-day coverage. If you're curious how Stephen Harper has held on to power over the last ten years and the philosophy behind his actions I would strongly recommend this book. I believe it also made an excellent companion to Susan Delacourt's Shopping for Votes, which I read at the same time.


You can follow me on Twitter @SLee_OT or at my blog at http://theorangetory.blogspot.ca/

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Paul Wells has to be one of the more objective, unbiased writers on the Canadian political scene. He is an insider who seems to be able to get significant people talk to him off the record and provide insights few others can get. The main theme of Wells' book is Stephen Harper's incrementalist philosophy to governing. Harper eschews large, transformative projects, such as Trudeau's Meech Lake and Mulroney's free trade. Rather he works to make changes in the running of government bit by bit, changes, and this is significant, that future governments will have a hard time reversing because they are fundamental to how government is run. Wells explains how someone like Harper who many can't believe was voted in in the first place has lasted over 8 years (by 2015, longer than only five other PMs) by saying that the primary motive for everything Harper does is to last. His goal since day one has been to replace the Liberal party as the party Canadians see as their natural governing party with the Conservatives.

Wells' writing style is engaging and easy to follow. As I said, he provides a number of behind the scenes insights to many significant events of the past eight years. Where the book falls a bit short is that it is a little heavy on the recounting of events and a little short on analysis. He does do analysis throughout the book, and devotes a couple of chapters to it entirely, so I'm not saying that it is missing entirely. There were just a few stretches where I felt I was reading recent history rather than the analysis I had come to expect. The analysis he does offer is, I think, accurate and fair without being partisan either way. One does get the impression that Wells is not a particular fan of Harper, but that he respects him and is generally fair in his assessments.

Overall, an interesting book that provides insight into the direction Canada has been heading in the last decade and where it could go in the next few years.

[Jean-François Lisée · Rating 4 out of 5]

Paul Wells est une des meilleures têtes et des meilleurs plumes pour décoder la politique canadienne. Dans cet ouvrage, il nous fait entrer dans un monde particulièrement opaque: la gouvernance de Stephen Harper. Ses lecteurs réguliers retrouveront ses thèmes, le caractère extraordinairement délibéré et à petit pas de la réelle transformation conservatrice du pouvoir et du Canada sous Harper.
Le moment le plus ahurissant: celui où il raconte comment Harper relit attentivement ses discours pour y enlever tout élément qui pourrait ressortir, intéresser, étonner, pour le rendre complètement beige et porteur d'un message et d'un seul, celui qu'il veut voir résonner aux informations du soir.
En tant qu'ancien rédacteur de discours, cela m'a un instant mis en état de choc.

[H Wesselius · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably the best work out there on Steven Harper as Prime Minister. Wells describes the origins of Harper's political theory and philosophy and his base of supporters -- a concept missed by most political journalists who don't seem to understand how Canadians could vote for him. He details the electoral victories, the incrementalism of his policies and the "starve the beast" technique which may make it difficult for the opposition to repair his destructive path. Finally, Wells gives us an insight into the personal character of Harper and what motivates him. Well worth the read.

[David Akin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Harper-haters would prefer the hostile jeremiads by Lawrence Martin or Michael Harris but books by those men and others are empty calories with little insight. If you really, really, really, really dislike the Harper gang, perhaps you'd be best off understanding what makes Harper work so that you might figure out how to beat the man who has absolutely dominated Canadian politics for the last decade. And for the rest of us, who just appreciate great journalism in its longer form, well, I'd agree with the judges of the Shaughnessy Cohen prize and the Dafoe prize, Paul's work was tops.

[Daniel Frank · Rating 2 out of 5]

made me feel like I was being stared at in a museum. Most of the thesis stems from large projections based on tiny events/statements. The parts about Harper were interesting but the bulk of the book was just a compilation of Well's articles over the past 6 years - aka all a waste of time for anyone who reads a newspaper.

the books also has a very different tone throughout different parts of the book which makes reading it a bit awkward.

[Blake Kanewischer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a super book that illuminates the thinking behind Stephen Harper's reign of power. It hints at ways in which the centre-left parties may be able to unseat Harper. The book is written by someone who's far from an admirer of Harper, and somewhat grudgingly explains the ways in which he's held and holding power. Well worth the read, even (especially?) if you're not of the same political stripe as Harper.