The Carney affair: 'There is a risk on being open about your place on the political spectrum' -

The Carney affair: ‘There is a risk on being open about your place on the political spectrum’


Jim Flaherty has nothing to say about Mark Carney and the Liberals.

“I have no comment on any of that,” he said. “I usually have comments on everything, but I have no comment on any of that.”

The New Democrats would like you to know that Peggy Nash would never invite the bank governor to her vacation home.

A New Democratic Party spokesman said Monday the party considers the Bank of Canada governor to be a non-partisan position and would never undermine that by inviting the governor to stay at an MP’s house.

And several British MPs are eager to hear what Mr. Carney has to say for himself.

Andrew Tyrie, the Tory chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, told the Times of London on Monday: “My colleagues will want to address every such issue at the preappointment hearing.” … Some British Conservative MPs who want Britain to adopt a more aggressive monetary policy expressed concern to The Times on Monday about Mr. Carney’s conversations with Canadian Liberal Party members. Mark Field, the Tory MP for the City of London, said: “Now we know he’s a liberal, there seems no doubt that it will be ‘business as usual’ for interest rates right through until 2015.” Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Somerset Tory MP, told The Times: “There is a risk on being open about your place on the political spectrum. Having someone with known political views in a nominally apolitical job can lead to disagreements.”


The Carney affair: ‘There is a risk on being open about your place on the political spectrum’

  1. There is an enormous amount of world news going on, but Macleans seems to be focussed solely on rumour and society gossip anymore.

    That’s not a comment on this blog in particular, but on Macleans in general.

    Carney’s vacations? The Queen’s wardrobe? The treacle of year-end statements? Yet more drivel on Justin? Recipes???


    • …and yet you’re still here, commenting on every possible blog post, article, news item…

      • Actually I don’t comment on 90% of them….you just don’t like my comments when I do. LOL

        • Oh, I don’t mind. I enjoy reading others’ comments, including yours :)
          I just found it curious, given your impressively active comment history (Disqus shows you made about 8500 comments on both your EmilyOne & OriginalEmily accounts over a period of 18 months when Macleans switched to Disqus). That’s a lot of comments for someone who doesn’t like the quality at Macleans.
          Although granted, I suppose Disqus is also including other non-Macleans comments boards in their stats, so your Disqus comment totals are not limited to the Macleans boards.

          • Well I meant lately….as in the last few weeks when the whole focus of Macleans has been changing.

            To get to real topics I can wade through lists, fluff, gossip, rumours etc….but it seems to be going into dangerous territory when the stories are made-up, or exaggerated or blown out of all proportion just to ruin someone’s reputation.

            PS….a site that asks for my comments…..gets them

  2. Even if MC did happen to be a liberal he would undoubtedly be a blue one, So that pretty well eliminates any daylight between his economic views and most of Harpers. And what on earth has his social views to do with setting bank monetary policy?
    This story gets more bizarre by the minute.