Bruce_the_vii wrote:
The job of Prime Minister comes with such a long list of responsibilities it's a wonder that anyone can do it well. In the first place they have to come up with a platform that sells to the voters, then they have to deal with the media, they have the Cabinet, backbench and PMO to manage. They are responsible for running the huge bureaucracies of government efficiently. They have to be knowledgeable in a wide range of issues. It's nothing like being a CEO of a mega corp. And to top it all off in our system often a person with no management experience is put in the top job. I'm soliciting comments about the problem with this thread. Does anyone have some best thoughts on nature of the top job.
Stephen Harper certainly does do all of this, though one canargue about how much of this the PM really ought to be doing.
He does come up with a huge amount of the platform, which covers both proposed legislation and government direction, but this is perhaps somewhat to teh detriment of the individual candidates' ability to put forth legislation that is near and dear to their own hearts. Private members' bills have a hard enough time as it is without having to compete for election coverage with national policies.
He is, or at least was, the major spokesperson for the party and Government, and one can argue whether this is about keeping a consistent message or muzzling outspoken MPs who might bring disfavor on the party and Government. If he didn't have these worries (if his MPs weren't such famously loose cannons), this pressure would be lessened.
Similar with "managing" the Cabinet and backbenchers. The people would do well to remember that the back benches aren't merely there to bolster numerical support for the Government's legislative and executive agenda. They aren't there working for the PM, they're there working for their constituents. At least that's the theory.
They only have to be knowledgeable on a wide range of issues if they can't or won't find people they trust to give them good advice on those wide ranges of issues.
You also forgot the Senate. Harper has decided it's also his job to keep his Senators in line, and keeps trying to give himself the responsibility for replacing them every eight years, even more frequently than he needs to now.
All of this seems to me a very good reason for separating the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government. It's dangerous to entrust one man with so much power, including the power to decide for himself how much power he has. Make his job easier, make him make once simple choice as to which line to go into, the line of setting government policy, or the line of setting the laws of the land. He shouldn't get to do both, whether he's Stephen Harper or one of his eventual successors.
Forum Elite 
