Prepare for a recession


Stephen Harper, Sept. 15, 2008“My own belief is if we were going to have some sort of big crash or recession, we probably would have had it by now.”

Stephen Harper, Sept. 26, 2008“The only way there is going to be a recession is if they’re elected, and that’s why they’re not going to be elected.”

Stephen Harper, yesterday.“I don’t see a lot of evidence that we’ll have a recession or a crisis this year, but on the other hand I don’t want to be too complacent about that.”


Prepare for a recession

  1. Wait, whoa….wasn’t he at Davos just a week ago warning everyone about a looming financial crisis?

  2. Qualifying himself with weasel words, hedging his bets with an “on the other hand” like the “economist” he proclaims to be. A can’t-lose prediction that serves no purpose other than to cover his own a$$.

    • That when he says “get ready for things to be bad” they’re probably fine, and when he says, “Don’t worry about it” we should really start to worry?

  3. Perhaps one more:

    “Canadians cannot afford to be complacent about the economy” says Harper.  When?  January 2008.


    While Mr. Wherry’s cherry picking to paint an unfavourable portrait of Harper appears (to be charitable) misleading, at least such half truths are easily uncovered in today’s day and age.

    A question worth considering: is dishonest agenda driven reporting and “analysis” less harmful simply because it is easily uncovered given the ease at which information can be gathered in the era of the information superhighway?

    • Because warning Canadians not to be complacent about the economy is the same thing as denying a recession is going to happen.

      Tell me, at what time do you think Harper should tell us that we *can* be complacent about the economy?  It’s a pointless statement.  Like saying “Canadians shouldn’t put their hand on a hot burner.”  Technically true, but also patently obvious unless you’re a blithering idio…


      never mind, I understand your reasoning now.

      • Actually, if you care to read the contents (which I suspect you don’t), Harper has been remarkably consistent with his message since 2008:

        Yes Canada is fairing well (and certainly better than most of the World) but we must remain vigilent, and cannot be complacent.

        Wherry’s cherry picking notwithstanding. 

        As for name calling, most generally take that as a sign that one cannot argue on the merits.

        • When has a PM ever advocated complacency?

    • Talk about cherrypicking .

      From the same CBC article:

      “We are aware of these challenges (the US financial volatility). We have acted and we will continue to act for regions and sectors that are in difficulty, like manufacturing, forestry, fishing and tourism. We will also continue to take measures to strengthen agriculture.”

      Too bad he didn’t race down to Wall Street and tell them how they were messing up and how to fix it. And too bad manufacturing, forestry, fishing and tourism are just sidelines now. Agriculture, well yes, killing the Wheat Board was a plan wasn’t it.

      But no matter, we are going to be an Energy Superpower!! Yippee!!

    • I think the point is that Harper knew that Canada was headed for recession, or was likely to, when he made his statement. He’s a liar, in other words.

    • Far from neutral, this consortium of leftist academics and journalists fomenting against a conservative government is par for the course.   They are about as fair and balanced as Mr. Wherry’s selective quoting. 

      • Well see, you’re ‘far from neutral’….however the CIC is non-partisan.

        ‘The Canadian International Council (CIC) is a non-partisan, nationwide foreign policy council established to strengthen Canada’s foreign policy. It promotes dialogue and research on international affairs issues through a national network that crosses academic disciplines, policy areas and economic sectors.’

        The Chair is Jim Balsillie…from RIM

        A huge capitalist….and neither left, an academic or a journalist.

        • I attended a CIC event a few years ago, at which Chris Alexander announced his run as a Conservative MP.

          I guess Chris didn’t understand this consortium of leftist academics and journalists was probably not the best place to announce it.

        • Yes, most media types claim to be non-partisan as well (see the “contributors”).   The article you cited, however, belies your claim.  Indeed, it would be difficult to find something more partisan sounding from the NDP national campaign.

          The “roundtable” articles?  The first three listed lampoon Harper, the third sings Obama praises.

          The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

          A good rule of thumb, is if far left commenters on left leaning blogs such as this one claim something as “neutral” that something usually sits where they are on the political spectrum. 

          • A good ‘rule of thumb’ is to expect some criticism, no matter what you think the partisanship is.

            Govts get criticism ya know….part of the job.

        • The CIC’s piece on Obama’s decision to reduce the size of the military is an embarrassment to an organization that claims to be a think tank in foreign policy matters.

          Obama’s new doctrine has drawn a fierce debate among military analysts and historians regarding the need for the US be able to fight a “two theatre” war – something that has been the center piece of the US military strategy for a generation.  Obama declared that such a strategy is no longer a worthy one.

          What can only be described as a shallow partisan puff piece, this “analysis” does not even mention this debate that is raging.  Rather, the piece cites “Republican’s” concerns (without mentioning this principle concern among Republicans and non- partisans alike) and then summarily dismisses them.  Instead offering a shallow, “it’s leaner but meaner” conclusion that one would expect from a high school paper (one that would garner a healthy C+).

          The embarrassment is here:

          • Now yer off on Obama’s military strategy….!

            Topic here is recession in Canada, not your concerns about being able to fight WWII.

    • What is particularly galling about such groups accusing others of fear mongering, is that they are at the forefront of telling the world that unless we hand over government control to them and their surrogates the world will end in a firery, global warming inferno.

      The latest from their friends at the Suzuki Foundation, telling children that Santa’s North Poll is going under water was a recent, gruesome, example.

      • If you seriously believe that all the scientists, media and academics in the world are plotting against you in some Marxist plan to take over the planet…..there is nothing anyone here can do to help you.

        • Well if you believe “all scientists” claim AGW is valid, then you are likely to be reading the left leaning news cites which propagate that falsehood.  If you read a wide variety of literature and the wide variety of studies themselves, as I do, then you would conclude that AGW is a weak theory that has largely shown to be false.

          That virtually all marxists and socialists vehemenly defend AGW as if it were a religion says much about the above described “theory” and the purported “cure” – greater taxation, governement control over the economy etc.

          • Not all scientists….just 99.9% of them. LOL

            You don’t read any studies….you just listen to that radio weatherman…who isn’t even qualified to be a weatherman….and dumbasses like Glenn Beck.

            Capitalists are also aware of GW, and know we have to deal with the problem…..they are also busy making money on green tech.

            Please do something about your paranoia….no sane person buys this nonsense….it’s just something you toss into every discussion to divert attention from the actual topic.

          • For those interested in educating themselves (rather than taking the media pablum) a good starting point for readers would be to review the case studies on the Spörer, Maunder and Dalton Minima.
            It is indisputable that drastic global warming and cooling occurred during the earth’s history.  Those above described minima have been well studied since the 1800’s up until today.
            They are also virtually stricken from the scientific record of the IPCC (anything other than AGW as a cause of global warming is largely forbidden to be discussed).
            Once readers have gone over those, we will move on with our studies.  Simply google those terms as a starting point.
            Emily, you are free to study along.
            In our next chapter, we will zoom forward to the very recent, and discuss the science behind computer modelling.  For it is computer models that AGW relies for its so called predictions.

          • Sunspots during the reign of Louis the Fourteenth?  Allrighty then….

  4. Fear/Assurance. It’s just the CPC talking again. Keeping you bouncing between the ping pong paddles.

  5. Conservatives lie, it’s what they do
    They lie to me, they lie to you
    They lie about the effects of their campaign’s run
    Knowing their base is just that dumb.

  6. As long as Harper remains at the wheel , I can guarantee that 99% of the population in Canada are going to be alot poorer as a result of his policies . Fewer jobs , lower paying jobs and people struggling to just survive are the future for this country . The Conservatives are turning this once great country into a waste land of broken families and broken dreams .

  7. Just to be safe, in these uncertain times, best to vote for ‘Steady Hand’

    • I agree

  8. Well if it happened during the reign of Louis the Fouteenth, then it didn’t happen?
    That today’s green’s mock  the prosepect of the possiblitity of something significant occurring prior to the 70’s tell you everything you need to know about the seriousness of this movement.

    The ice age?  Apparently that was some cartoon produced by Pixar.

    “The little ice age was….like so….last millenium…..”

    Today’s sophisticated green movement.

    • Oh Christ, stop lying.  At first I thought you were simply ignorant. Now I’m thinking you’re beyond that and are being, at best, willfully ignorant, if not flat out dishonest.

      Nobody disputes that climate changed before mankind’s industrial output, and there’s been a lot of research into the causes of those changes.

      The kicker is that none of those changes applies to our current temperature trend, unless you assume that for some unknown reason, some climactic cycle decided to reverse itself about midway through it’s expected period

      The only model that comes close to explaining our recent temperature changes (recent as in the last 50-100 years) without requiring some magical hand of god is the release of deep CO2 by human activity. Does it give us perfect predictions? Nope. But it’s come a hell of a lot closer than any competing theory, and any deviations have been able to be explained within the evidence and science of it.. which again, is a hell of a lot better than any competing theory can provide.

      • What makes me laugh is how they go on about how climate has changed over billions of years, and Maunder minimums and all that, as if they are the only people in the world who know that.  Everyone else is supposedly either unaware of such things or ‘forbidden’ to talk about them.  LOL

        And of course they missed the huge solar storm we had last week.

      • Except the model (and that is all it is, not a “proved scientific truth” as is peddled by our helpless media) predicted skyrockting temps with the corresponding increase in CO2.  But that hasn’t happened for the last 16 years.  

        In any other scientific field the model would be considered false.  But because politically motivated people put the solutions cart before the causation horse, there is is this desperate, flailing attempt to justify the failure without committing the heresy of telling the truth – that it is in fact a failure.
        Of course, those who study computer models in particular (rather than the jack of all trades “climate scientists”) know only with the simplist of mechanism can models predict future outcomes.  It is, in fact, statistically impossible for computer models to predict anything as comlex, with so many interrlated variables, as our climate.  Particularly since the complex feedback loops and varying sensitivities are still unknown.

        The computer models are a failure, and those experts could say with certainty that they would be a failure.

        Twenty years ago warmists were predicting New York would be starting to go under water, our fertile prairies would be becoming desert wastelands, and Europe was to never have another winter. 

        In fact, the precise opposite has occured.

        But because the “green movement” has been hijacked by anti-capitialist/socialists, the plain facts no longer matter.  Only the belief.

        Now it is about being a “believer”.  It is the left’s faith.

        • hijacked by anti-capitialist/socialists…

          I wasn’t alive yet, so perhaps you can tell me what it’s like back there in the 1950s. The Red Menace seems to be everywhere in your world.

          …the walls have ears. 
          …the sparrow flies at dusk…

        • No, they don’t predict ‘skyrocketing’ temps, anymore than they predicted NY being underwater 20 years ago, and all the other assertions you make.

          Or the world ending in a fiery ball. Christians do though.

          You are the one making all these extreme statements, and attributing them to the wrong people.

          No, the models are not false….and the climatologists know all about the variables. The models are updated all the time, as new info comes in.

          It has nothing to do with the ‘left’ either….an outdated concept from the Cold War….in spite of all your searching under beds for commies.

          If YOU don’t wish to ‘believe’ in it…fine, don’t.

          Just stop trying to skew the data to lead other gullible types into error.

        • Stop reading the news and start reading the actual science. The science predicts a range of temperature fluctuations, generally rising. Temperatures have stayed within those predictions pretty damn well actually.

          Does it match the worst case scenario’s given? Nope. Doesn’t match the best case either though, tends to stick pretty much between the two.

          In any other scientific field, the model would be considered exactly the same as this one is. A model, and so long as the observed facts can be explained within the model, and no better model has been developed, it’d be the one we stick with. Which is exactly what’s happened.

          And your assertions as to what warmists were saying 20 years ago is irrelevant, because scientists were saying pretty close to the same things they are now. If anything, the range of deviation in predictions has narrowed as we’ve accumulated more facts and outlying predictions dropped off with no means to explain the high deviation — on both the lower and the higher sides.

          The plain facts remain. Temperatures are trending slightly higher or remaining stable, when all the factors that tend to affect climate change suggest that temperatures should actually be decreasing.

    • Welcome back Chet.

  9. Harper caused the problems that we are now facing because they were unwilling to get off their a$$es and admit that anything was wrong . They were to busy wheeling and dealing to care about the the general population and more interested in helping themselves and their rich friends achieve what they wanted . Now the rest of us will have to suffer because of it . Good God will we ever be able to elect an honest politician . I highly doubt it .