The Economist to Harper: Bullying improves NDP chances

[mentalfloss]

I've found that every time someone lashes out at dissenting opinion as lefty, wing-nut, pinko, etc.. It only strengthens the critic's point and marginalizes their own.

This appears to be happening in Ottawa as well.

The Economist, a mostly right-leaning British weekly, criticized the Harper government for giving the opposition an opening by being inflexible and claimed the Prime Minister was “intolerant of criticism and dissent.”

It warned Harper the NDP under Thomas Mulcair was fast becoming “more credible.”

“Thomas Mulcair has started well, imposing party discipline, dropping leftist talk and moving towards the centre. He has called for a balanced approach to developing the tar sands, taking more note of environmental worries. He kept the party quiet during four months of student demonstrations against rises in tuition fees in Quebec — a silence that seemed to flummox the Conservative attack machine,” the editorial said.

The Economist to Harper: Your bullying ways are giving the NDP a chance

Edited July 6, 2012 by mentalfloss

[Topaz]

In my view, Harper is helping the NDP into the PMO. The view that Harper will get voters to change their minds against him by the time elections comes, may not pan out for the Tories. Voters KNOW what the Tories are all about and they will give power to the other two parties, and in this case, the NDP have a better chance of getting rid of the Tories than the Liberals, which could work out for the Liberals down the road.

[PIK]

In my view, Harper is helping the NDP into the PMO. The view that Harper will get voters to change their minds against him by the time elections comes, may not pan out for the Tories. Voters KNOW what the Tories are all about and they will give power to the other two parties, and in this case, the NDP have a better chance of getting rid of the Tories than the Liberals, which could work out for the Liberals down the road.

It also says what a great job harper is doing for the country. What the article really says is the canadian voter is stupid, stupid enough to put in the NDP and bankrupt the country because harper does'nt take shit from anyone. And if the newspaper thinks mulcair has a balanced approach to the oil sands, then they have done thier home work. Harper is doing what has to be done ,even if it costs him vote, something obama and european leaders do not have the balls to do.

[Rick]

And if the newspaper thinks mulcair has a balanced approach to the oil sands, then they have done thier home work.

Good to see you're jumping on board You're right, they have done their homework. Mulcair's approach is balanced and shows common sense to allow all of this country to prosper with job growth which this country is lacking in Harper.

[Canuckistani]

Yep. If Mulcair can keep a leash on his mouth, think about what the reaction will be to what he's saying, he seems to have a good shot. Even that oilsands stuff, he said some perfectly reasonable things, but he's gotta know it will get twisted around by his foes.

[Shady]

Canadians will never put the NDP in power federally, so this is much-ado-about-nothing.

[Topaz]

Canadians will never put the NDP in power federally, so this is much-ado-about-nothing.

Yeah, but voters never thought Harper would get a majority which still have to wait and see if it was done honestly. So in politics and when it comes to the voters, never say never.

[capricorn]

Yeah, but voters never thought Harper would get a majority which still have to wait and see if it was done honestly.

By the time Elections Canada completes the investigation into how Harper stole the election he will have declared himself dictator for life.

So in politics and when it comes to the voters, never say never.

One thing for sure is that voters usually get it right. It's just that some voters don't take losing easily which causes them to regurgitate sour grapes.

[Shady]

I'm still trying to figure out how Harper's been a so-called bully. Exactly how?

[capricorn]

I'm still trying to figure out how Harper's been a so-called bully. Exactly how?

Simple really. Anti-Harperites are not used to plain talk and decisive action. They're more used to having Liberal ditherers in power and they pine for the good old days.

[BubberMiley]

I'm still trying to figure out how Harper's been a so-called bully. Exactly how?

Maybe you should have tried reading the article.

The government is intolerant of criticism and dissent. Civil libertarians who oppose giving police easier access to internet users’ browsing histories were branded by Conservatives as supporters of child pornographers. They condemned greens worried about the development of Alberta’s tar sands as radicals laundering foreign money; the government is investigating the charitable status of some green groups. It killed off an advisory body of businessmen, scientists and officials because it supported a carbon tax. The electoral authority is investigating claims that Conservatives used automated phone calling in 2011 to mislead voters in opposition areas about where to vote.

[bleeding heart]

One thing for sure is that voters usually get it right.

That's not "for sure," and is in fact a meaningless platitude.

It's just that some voters don't take losing easily which causes them to regurgitate sour grapes.

That's true enough; but a far more fascinating phenomenon is when the winners insist on victim status and continual whining.

[j44]

I wouldn't say The Economist is a mostly right leaning publication. It is for free-market principles and pushes them hard but anyone who thinks it is right wing has never read past the first page.

[Shady]

The government is intolerant of criticism and dissent. Civil libertarians who oppose giving police easier access to internet users’ browsing histories were branded by Conservatives as supporters of child pornographers. They condemned greens worried about the development of Alberta’s tar sands as radicals laundering foreign money; the government is investigating the charitable status of some green groups. It killed off an advisory body of businessmen, scientists and officials because it supported a carbon tax. The electoral authority is investigating claims that Conservatives used automated phone calling in 2011 to mislead voters in opposition areas about where to vote.

Sounds like regular politics to me. Kinda like when the NDP accuse Conservatives of wanting to poison the air and water, or hating the poor when they don't support NDP environment or social assistance policy. Btw, regarding intolerance of criticism and dissent, does the NDP tolerate members that don't believe in gay marriage?

[capricorn]

I wouldn't say The Economist is a mostly right leaning publication. It is for free-market principles and pushes them hard but anyone who thinks it is right wing has never read past the first page.

Here is the headline to the Economist's article.

"Time to flip

The voters may be starting to tire of the prime minister’s bullying"

Like most media these days, they're battling for readership online and in print. The more controversial and sensational the headline and content, the better results they get.

[j44]

Here is the headline to the Economist's article.

"Time to flip

The voters may be starting to tire of the prime minister’s bullying"

Like most media these days, they're battling for readership online and in print. The more controversial and sensational the headline and content, the better results they get.

I don't see that line as being controversial or sensational. It is just inaccurate.

[Dave_ON]

Btw, regarding intolerance of criticism and dissent, does the NDP tolerate members that don't believe in gay marriage?

Woah is it 2005 again?

In answer yes, as I recall it seems to me only the Liberals had a whipped vote on that little bit of legislation.

Way to hit up current events. While we're addressing these items at the height of their relevance... did you hear about that utterly scandalous King-Byng affair?

Edited July 7, 2012 by Dave_ON

[bleeding heart]

I wouldn't say The Economist is a mostly right leaning publication. It is for free-market principles and pushes them hard but anyone who thinks it is right wing has never read past the first page.

I've read it a zilliopn times. It leans slightly to the right; they're not doctrinaire conservatives, but they are doctrinaire "free marketers" and doctrinaire "powerful states are morally superior" theorists.

[j44]

I've read it a zilliopn times. It leans slightly to the right; they're not doctrinaire conservatives, but they are doctrinaire "free marketers" and doctrinaire "powerful states are morally superior" theorists.

I'd say they are more free market and pro-west than right wing.

[kraychik]

I wouldn't say The Economist is a mostly right leaning publication. It is for free-market principles and pushes them hard but anyone who thinks it is right wing has never read past the first page.

Exactly, add another to the long list of examples of terrible journalism from The National Post. To describe is as "mostly right-leaning" is either a blatant lie, or, more likely, a twenty-something "journalist" who went to Wikipedia for a couple of seconds before submitting his article to his editor five minutes before its deadline to find out about a newspaper he'd never heard of. Hilariously, The Economist is also described as "influential". Considering that The National Post is a Canadian newspaper targeting a Canadian audience, how they choose to define The Economist as "influential" in the Canadian context boggles the mind.

I also find it rich that a know-nothing "journalist", presumably from the UK, will be so pretentious as to tell us Canadians what does or doesn't work well for Harper. Bottom line? This is a fluff piece masquerading as something more substantial, where the fake intelligentsia can give themselves a bravo and job well done for reading something "intellectual" about a country they know nothing about.

[kraychik]

I don't see that line as being controversial or sensational. It is just inaccurate.

It's a manufactured narrative designed to appeal to leftists, which is exactly why The National Post picked up on it. I agree with capricorn, it's sensationalism. There is no "bullying" from Harper going on. It's another irrelevant periodical (which has virtually nothing to do with economics, ironically) struggling to maintain a readership.

[Wilber]

I also find it rich that a know-nothing "journalist", presumably from the UK, will be so pretentious as to tell us Canadians what does or doesn't work well for Harper. Bottom line? This is a fluff piece masquerading as something more substantial, where the fake intelligentsia can give themselves a bravo and job well done for reading something "intellectual" about a country they know nothing about.

Maybe some Canadians should keep that in mind when spouting off about the US.

[bleeding heart]

I'd say they are more free market and pro-west than right wing.

Sure, but if a news organ is free market and "pro-West," it is going to lean at least slightly to the Right, or at least more often than not...when the chips are down. That is, if the Economist Editorial Board had to choose, it would fall behind a right-leaning government before a left-leaning one. Reflexively, and in a realm larger than economics.

In fact, they routinely do so. If you read "The Americas" section, back when Uribe was Colombia's leader, they consistently had back-to-back assessments of Colombia and Venezuela.

I certainly have no issue with criticisms of Chavez, who has pretty real authoritarian tendencies (though he's hardly the "dictator" that his critics so promiscuously label him); however, according to every international assessment to my knowledge--up to and including Canadian government reports and the US State Department--Colombia under Uribe had every major human rights issue that Venezuela had...except worse.

The Economist assiduously avoids this sedulous truth; or, more likely, they're flatly unable to even perceive what is hidden in plain view. (By the radical lefties at the State Department, for example, or the crazed socialists who make up the Canadian Government.)

The tone of the Economist's pieces--without a single exception that I ever saw--made great bones about Venezuela's less-than-stellar human rights record, coupled with repeated insistence that "working with Washington" was improving Colombia's record. (A historical first, if it were true..which it isn't.)

In other words, states friendly to powerful Western/Northern interests are inherently good, or at least continually 'improving" (evidence not required); whereas more hostile states are like misbehaved children.

Edited July 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

[kraychik]

Maybe some Canadians should keep that in mind when spouting off about the US.

Depends on the Canadian, of course. You're absolutely right for the most part.

[j44]

Sure, but if a news organ is free market and "pro-West," it is going to lean at least slightly to the Right, or at least more often than not...when the chips are down. That is, if the Economist Editorial Board had to choose, it would fall behind a right-leaning government before a left-leaning one. Reflexively, and in a realm larger than economics.

In fact, they routinely do so. If you read "The Americas" section, back when Uribe was Colombia's leader, they consistently had back-to-back assessments of Colombia and Venezuela.

I certainly have no issue with criticisms of Chavez, who has pretty real authoritarian tendencies (though he's hardly the "dictator" that his critics so promiscuously label him); however, according to every international assessment to my knowledge--up to and including Canadian government reports and the US State Department--Colombia under Uribe had every major human rights issue that Venezuela had...except worse.

The Economist assiduously avoids this sedulous truth; or, more likely, they're flatly unable to even perceive what is hidden in plain view. (By the radical lefties at the State Department, for example, or the crazed socialists who make up the Canadian Government.)

The tone of the Economist's pieces--without a single exception that I ever saw--made great bones about Venezuela's less-than-stellar human rights record, coupled with repeated insistence that "working with Washington" was improving Colombia's record. (A historical first, if it were true..which it isn't.)

In other words, states friendly to powerful Western/Northern interests are inherently good, or at least continually 'improving" (evidence not required); whereas more hostile states are like misbehaved children.

^Doesn't this just show that they are pro free-market and western?