61

‘The legislature matters more than the luge’


 

The Economist has a go at the Prime Minister.

Mr Harper is a competent tactician with a ruthless streak. He bars most ministers from talking to the media; he has axed some independent watchdogs; he has binned campaign promises to make government more open and accountable. Now he is subjecting Parliament to prime-ministerial whim. He may be right that most Canadians care more about the luge than the legislature, but that is surely true only while their decent system of government is in good hands. They may soon conclude that it isn’t.


 

‘The legislature matters more than the luge’

  1. The Economist is a refuse for those socialists and enablers of terrorism. What else do you expect.

  2. What else to expect from a rag that routinely endorses Layton & the NDP?

  3. Funny
    part of the (Flannagan-confirmed) game plan is to be attacked from the right-wing (while of course taking criticism from the left) to appear more centrist.

    But to have Coyne, the G&M and the Economist sharing the exact complaint of Elizabeth May seems that the plan may just have back-fired.

  4. the Economist is obviously some sort of socialist rag.

  5. Was that the Economist (a British rag the last time I checked, Thwim) or perhaps "the Optimist" Jack.

  6. Noted and corrected. Thanks!

  7. The magazine is so left wing it endorses socialist schemes from around the world.

  8. Actually, the lede above should read: "The Economist has a go at the Prime Minister … twice in one day!"

    The article linked above is filed under "Leaders". Here's the second piece from the "Americas" section, also from January 7:

    Canada without Parliament
    Halted in mid-debate
    http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaySt

  9. The Economist is actually British… edited in London since 1843. Small point of order.

  10. I can't tell if you folks are being facetious or not. I know nothing of this magazinebut the G&M's Galloway leads with 'The influential and mostly right-wing British magazine The Economist'.

  11. And this is just Week 1. We still have seven more weeks of Harperacation.

  12. Problems with the internet.. tone doesn't come through well if you don't know the writers. I can assure you they're being quite facetious. :)

    On a more serious note.. if hosertohoosier's commentary elsewhere is correct, that most conservative supporters don't pay attention to politics during the non-election period, this could be a very bad sign for Harper, because a lot of conservatives actually *do* pay attention to The Economist at all times of the year.

  13. Unfortuately most don't have the stamina to bother with something that long.

  14. Thanks Thwim. I'm really not an air head, I just don't get out much.

  15. Certainly not the opposition parties.

  16. The Economist – socialist rag? Try fairly right-wing, establishment weekly that's been around since 1843…. when it started, the words "Free Trade" were in it's title. It would be nice if people checked there facts before commenting.

  17. By proroguing parliament under these circumstances the Harper government is displaying non-confidence in itself.

  18. They were being sarcastic

  19. Well when the pile-on was mounting, even I knew enough to ask the question…

  20. And that's really contributing to the conversation.

  21. The running dialogue quite often on these boards from conservative trolls is about how only the left-wing biased MSM cares about this story or any aspects of accountability in government.

    When the flagship of moderate international conservatism soberly calls out a Conservative leader, sarcasm is inevitable. A gentle settling of accounts, if you will.

  22. Thanks for the clarification. Luckily, I don't pay enough attention to the regular commentators to be in the know :)

  23. Then I suspect you have more hair than I do :)

  24. Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has clearly stepped into the manure with his latest fiasco too.. Harper government draws fire for suspending Parliament and how many times have I rightfully said that the Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's managerial skills are one step forward and two steps backwards, and I can always count on him to shoot himself and his party in the foot. http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/p

  25. There is no need for them here. The collective (*gasp!* pinkos!) use of sarcasm was sufficient to rebut the Economist without the usual suspects getting involved.

  26. I'd love to try luging some day. It must be exhilarating to go down an icy waterslide at 150 km/h.

  27. Awaiting said points. Pop into the Blogging Tories aggregator if you have the stomach and you can watch them in the process of trying to sort out what said talking points are.

  28. It's all part of my boy Stevies Machiavellian plan : don't you get it – come Mar 3/2009 there is a throne speech and these are usually confidence motions and the first order of business … then consider the cowardice of the opposition parties at present whom I sincerely doubt will all vote against the gov't forcing an election – then add a dose of reality with Stevie not injecting a poison pill anywhere as he doesn't need to now .. if things get too hot he can look straight into the face of any canadian and rightly say talk to the leader of party X who supported the gov't .. hence .. no election until the fall and even then it doesn't look good – so the next thing you know it's 2011 and troops are coming home and Stevie can exit stage left with grace leaving both his party and the country in solid conservative hands – sorry left wing nuts but that's what's in play!

  29. oops march 2010 – years are going by way too fast

  30. Can The Economist<./i> hug the Taliban more warmly?

  31. Interesting. Too bad one can't prorogue the spinning of the earth to prevent events from getting in the way of plans.

    Also, if Canada doesn't win any medals does that affect your prediction?

  32. Also, if Canada doesn't win any medals does that affect your prediction?

    What are the odds that Canada won't win any medals at all? Probably equivalent to the odds of an asteroid strike wiping out Vancouver during the Olympics.

  33. Come now, we all know there's only one medal that really counts – Men's hockey. If we lose that…well I don't want to even consider it.

  34. It would be like the 1994 Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver! The streets would be littered with burning cars, broken glass, and panicked tourists fleeing for cover. The Olympic flame would be extinguished by a tear gas cannister.

    In short, it would be the Best Olympics Ever.

  35. Republican America Hockey teams lost to the Canadians. Democratic America Hockey teams beat the Canadians.

  36. "It would be like the 1994 Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver! The streets would be littered with burning cars, broken glass, and panicked tourists fleeing for cover"

    Ahhh isn't springtime in Montreal beautiful?

  37. Proroguegate.

    How quickly the last [gate] went. What was it again? Giant cheque gate, then save the poor terrorist prisoners gate, now its prorouge gate.

    Liberal faux scandals are like teenage fads.

    When they're "in" you'll hear nothing else. A few days later, it's "dude that was soooo last week."

  38. Indeed, and since our current Leadership seems to value the Olympics so much as to cancel parliament for it, I'd like to see them try, as well.

  39. dude, using "gate" as a suffix is sooooo 2009.

  40. Too bad one can't prorogue the spinning of the earth to prevent events from getting in the way of plans.

    LOL.

    Contrary to the science of Superman, if the Earth stopped spinning, the passage of time would not actually come to a halt. (Similarly, you can't actually reverse the passage of time by making the Earth spin backwards!).

  41. Just so we're clear, The Economist is not actually "the Liberals". It's a conservative publication from a whole other country.

    • Biff is the CON's wireton willy, sticking his head out of the smoke-filled maul that is warroom central where a hundred monkeys are typing up the next talking points, while dozens of hampsters are printing up the next 10percenters, and anti-evolutionary scientists are testing defecating various animal droppings on the photos of various opposition members.
      Hey Biff, how's that 'Please someone invent a less scratchy-on-my-head tinfoil!' facebook page coming?

  42. So Aaron, will you out the author of the article? Or at least hint if it's a Canadian journalist?

    • A non-attributed opinion an op-ed page is usually written by the editorial board. In practice it probaly had one other but was reviewed by the ed. board, edited and signed off on. Not certain if that's true for the economist but odds are it wasn't written by a Canadian.

  43. They're obviously a bunch of Liberal shills, etc.

  44. No, no.. it's that their an american publication and Canadians don't care about what they say.

    So far as I've been able to determine.. about the only thing Canadians do care about from a Harper Supporter point of view is that the Senate is going to be reformed by the MessiahPM

  45. Pretty sure most Canadians don't even know what luge is, let alone care more about it than Parliament.

    Hockey, on the other hand…

  46. Northern POV caught that a few moments ago and I must have corrected while you were typing your comment. But thanks just the same!

  47. "more concerned about hockey than the House…"

  48. Yes, but after the Throne Speech, they elect a Speaker, right? And immediately after that (and before a vote of confidence on the Throne Speech can be called) I see a point of privilege coming up. As I understand it, a point of privilege must be dealt with immediately and trumps all other business. And the point of privilege would be about the motion passed on December 10, 2009, which called for the documents to be presented "forthwith". Nobody with the slightest understanding of the English language could call almost three months and counting "forthwith" so the motion would call for a vote on whether the government (or MacKay) is in contempt of Parliament. That vote would pass, leaving Harper to conclude that the contempt finding means a loss of confidence–thereby calling the election himself.

  49. Yes, but after the Throne Speech, they elect a Speaker, right? And immediately after that (and before a vote of confidence on the Throne Speech can be called) I see a point of privilege coming up. As I understand it, a point of privilege must be dealt with immediately and trumps all other business. And the point of privilege would be about the motion passed on December 10, 2009, which called for the documents to be presented "forthwith". Nobody with the slightest understanding of the English language could call almost three months and counting "forthwith" so the motion would call for a vote on whether the government (or MacKay) is in contempt of Parliament. That vote would pass, leaving Harper to conclude that the contempt finding means a loss of confidence–thereby calling the election himself.

  50. Well put, Nich.

  51. Strange – where are the conbots, furiously typing up CPoC talking points?

  52. Happy to help…

  53. We all can agree a week is a lifetime in politics. At this current rate — and agreeing it could shift in a whole other direction or lose steam or gain wind — Harper may not wish to be in an election scenario, while the Liberals might. Or maybe it'll be the Greens by then. Just never say never, I suppose.

  54. This blurb from the economist.com provides some context:

    Why is it anonymous? Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor "not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle."

Sign in to comment.