'Some day my prince will come' - Macleans.ca

‘Some day my prince will come’


The Economist kind of endorses Stephen Harper.

For these reasons The Economist, like many Canadians, would be relieved if there were a better alternative to Mr Harper. But there is not.


‘Some day my prince will come’

  1. That's quite an endorsement. It basically amounts to a "Sure, this sucks, but what are you going to do?" LOL.

    • Kinda sounds like the Globe's endorsement, too.

  2. Read the platforms. Check the budgets.
    The Liberal one is the only one that adds up.
    I'm not happy with it, I don't think Iggy is an inspiring leader, but he is capable of taking questions from Canadians, addressing actual issues with some honesty, and has an excellent background of career experience outside of politics.
    He also seems to think that democratic institutions actually matter.
    And his budget is not a fantasy.
    That puts him on top of a short pile.
    Harper doesn't deserve to be rewarded with a third opportunity to cooperate with other parties and respect democracy.

    • Iggy has betrayed his rank and file membership by endorsing Harper's legislation turning bulk water export over to the provinces with no tethers! That is a betrayal of the first order! Then,, going out of his way to to usher in private insurance health care is another betrayal of the rank and file Liberal like myself.

      I think he would be much happier back in the states running as a republican.

      • Only a matter of time before the Supreme Court rules against the CHA anyway. Almost happened in 2005 – with a 4-4 split vote due to one judge abstaining. The next time, the CHA won't be so lucky.

        • I'm pretty sure none of what you write is correct.

  3. Really?

    "Every" Albertan?

    Are you including the over 400,000 Albertans who didn't vote Tory in 2008?

    • Ok, maybe I should say every Albertan that is either directly or indirectly employed by the energy sector. So, probably only about 75% of us. The others, I assume public employees, student, and the unemployed probably have nothing to worry about.

      • Government figures put the energy sector at 60% of the provincial employers. While it is significant it is hardly the ruling class.

        • Yeah but we are all linked to the downstream economic activities of others in our region. For instance say, a real estate agent in Edmonton, or somebody working in a grocery store in an oil-patch town are all intrinsically linked to the fate of that one industry.

          A better indicator would be to look at exports – the oil and oil refining industry makes up 70.5% of Alberta's exports, so its in between both of your answers, but slightly closer to Turd Ferguson's

  4. For the record: I don't hate Alberta. I have no linking however for those who think that I, my children, and my parents, are bastards who should freeze in the dark.

    • It may come to that if the oil sands ever really do get shut down. But take comfort in the fact that Alberta will be joining you in the cold darkness.

      • Yeah, cuz Canada would already be an arctic Haiti if Alberta didn't happen to be sitting on top of the tar sands.

  5. There at it again, the Harper "hating left wing press" Just watch the conservative owned press this weekend, newspapers, TV stations, radio stations blatently support Harper because he's the "best of the worst". They started the NDP surge to take down the liberals but they did not realize how sick and tired the public is of scare mongering tories. Rick Merser lit a fire under EVERYONE not only the youth and now the right wing press is trying to scale back the NDP surge. My guess is that they will be successful in getting Harper his majority and then they will go back to pretending they are real news agencies and pretent to 'keep an eye on him".

  6. It's not surprising that the Globe and the Economist have endorsed Harper, for the simple reason that all the alternatives are much worse. Has any publication endorsed the Liberals yet?

    Globe: "Those who disdain the Harper approach should consider his overall record, which is good."

    Economist: "Mr Harper's record is in some ways impressive (…) he deserves credit for having administered a limited and effective fiscal stimulus, and for promoting investment through corporate tax cuts."

    • Showing their colors here. So called press ENDORSING a party! Where are the 'left wing' media comments now? Where's that Dennis_F guy and Trudeau Lover? cashing there tory troll paychecks that's where!

      • The funny thing is that the media is a bit biased both ways. Most journalists are themselves left-leaning, but most editorial boards have a strong incentive to lean to the right (from an advertising standpoint, and also in this case, you want to have access to an incoming government). In the final analysis its a wash.

    • You're putting words in their mouths. They are giing the most tepid of nods to Harper based on the fact they hae a reasonable idea how he will act as a PM, and little idea how Layton or Ignatieff would act. What they are saying is that Harper is a bad choice, but so to might be the others, so go with the bad choice you're sure of.

      I think the real message that should be taken is this: "If none of today's leaders is capable of convincing Canadians that they deserve a clear mandate, then they should yield to others who might."

      A minority under either of these men is preferable to a majority under either. At least then if it fails the parties might shape up and gie us real sensible options under electable candidates.

      • Ethos has it right and I say the press has no business endorsing any party. But I know that the 'press' is owned by conservative business but sadly the vast majority of Canadians do not know this and think that 'hey, if my newspaper, Tv station etc, endorses Harper then maybe I should'. It is disgraceful and unacceptable. Social media will eventually shut them down I hope. One can only hope.
        Vote ABC.

    • Apparently, Maclean's magazine has endorsed the Liberals (at least the editor did).

      • Coyne is speaking as an individual, which is a good thing considering that his decision to vote for bad policy rests on the extremely questionable assumption that " We can afford a period of Liberal silliness."—not to mention the silliness that would ensue under a Layton-led coalition government.

        • It isnt questionable at all. None of the parties platforms contain any meaningful distinction in terms of the economy. Even the NDP is a sensible alternative, dispite their reputation. Raising the CIP to last years levels – which were a sizeable decrease mind you, will have little real impact on the economy, and is offset by their plan to lower small/medium business taxes.

          The only real difference between the three is fiscal policy, which will hardly decide the fate of our economy – if it even effects it at all. The government can, with structural reform, have a large impact on the economy, but none is being proposed in this election. So the options are between low revenues and deficit spending, medium revenues and deficit spending, or higher revenues and… defecit spending. At the end of the day, the results are negligible.

          Contrary to the hype, this is not an election about the economy, though it should be, because we are left with no choices.

        • You know, that line stood out for me as while. "We can afford a period of Liberal silliness". I really don't think so either. Suppose the 2008 financial crisis hit with the NDP in charge. Imagine how much nationalization, deficit spending, enhanced welfare and EI, and other socialist policies would be enacted in a very short time – it would take a decade to undo the damage. I'm quite skeptical that it makes any sense to afford a period of economic silliness. That's easy to say for someone in a stable job, like say, editor in chief of a national magazine. But a period of economic silliness can have a profound impact on people entering the job market, or people without financial security.

        • Thinking about it some more, I feel that the only reason Coyne feels that he can say "We can afford a period of Liberal silliness" is because Canada weathered the global meltdown so well compared to other nations. And yet, his conclusion is that we should therefore reward such economic success by throwing the bums out and put that economic success in peril.

          • Your concerns seem curiously disconnected from the reality of the situation – I suspect intentionally.

            The economy did not weather a global meltdown well by any actions of the government, but by a completely different set of circumstances. Our financial markets were on better footing, and did not take the same reckless risks. Our economy, primarily reliant on the exportation of resrouces, benefitted from soaring commodity prices, and the stats we draw on to prove our economic success only prove a point if you dont look at them too serious.

            You seem to be basing your 'concerns' on little more than ideology – which has no relevance in this election. there is no conservative, liberal, or socialist options given to the voters. This is an election betwen center, center-left, and center-right. The degree of variance is negligible between the three parties.

          • I'm basing my concerns on the reaction to the global meltdown. Many countries reacted badly – the USA for instance, blew over a trillion dollars on stimulus that accomplished little, and that will take many years to get back.
            In fact, I'd say that if you want to measure the difference between the NDP reaction and the Conservative reaction, then look at the difference in performance between the US and Canada since that time. Obama pursued a set of policies that would be similar to the NDP's in similar circumstances.

        • I'm not 100% sure, but I'm reasonalby sure that Coyne has indicated that the GST cuts and the boutique tax credits are bad economic policy (so we know that the CPC is not immune from implementing bad policies), or have I got that wrong.

          Also, he isn't willing to risk the possibility of some Liberal silliness just as a lark or on a whim – he is willing to take the risk of that moderate potential cost in order to achieve what he considers to be a much more worthwhile goal.

  7. Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

    • Abortions for some, miniature Canadian flags for others!

  8. Economists Like Stephen? Am I off track or was it not the Economists who pulled down our financial house last time?

    • and missed the recession by a country mile! Boycott the Globe!
      Vote ABC

  9. Yes Loraine and it saddens me greatly. That's why I continue to fight the good old political fight.

    The decision to do away with Canada's public health system originated between Harper and Martin and has been carried forward to Iggy. They are facing an aging population by cutting them off from Government support just as the Republicans in the US did and are continuing doing. Their Medicaid is under attack as being the first choice for cuts.

    There are lots of things to be discussed on medical, expenses and coverages. I have made an effort at doing just that See: Health Care Costs: http://albertathedetails.blogspot.com/2011/04/can

    The Conservatives across the country (including the Liberals in BC) have an easy place to charge expenses in their health care. The higher they can push health care costs the easier it will be to do away with the public system.

    After we get the costs and the accounts beat out we can start comparing and fixing things. Without this basic costing in place it will degenerate into a name calling forum .

    I think there is a way to allow physicians to bill outside of our public system. I don't think our system has to be trashed to do it.

  10. So it's as old news as the NEP, then?

  11. you and Aaron only poach what you want to hear:

    "After five years, he has earned Canadians' respect if not their love. He is an astute political tactician: he is the longest-serving prime minister of a minority government in Canadian history."
    "In the past two elections the opposition successfully aroused fears that if Mr Harper won a majority he would subject a tolerant country to socially conservative policies—banning abortion and gay marriage and introducing capital punishment. With Mr Harper now a more familiar figure, that may not work this time."

    It was actually a good article.

    • Why do you bother trying to engage the Emily. She is still the only commenter who has had her name turned into a verb. If you've ever been 'Emilied', you'd know what I mean.

      • It took me a while to see that, but now I guess I do. I just figured we were all here to debate and exchange ideas.