The Economist to Harper: Bullying improves NDP chances

[bush_cheney2004]

I am extremely grateful to Pierre Elliot Trudeau for having started the trend of enriched entitlements. I am one of his benefactors and happily, I am unaffected by current Conservative restraint measures. Life is good.

Indeed....likewise Boomer kisses for LBJ and his Great Society programs to feather my nest. Life is good!

[BubberMiley]

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.

If you think The Economist is a newspaper, you're likely the one who's never heard of it. Are you even twentysomething yet?

[BubberMiley]

I think what you meant to say is "according to Rabble and other far left forums, democracy is dead in Canada and I support that opinion".

It is kind of *scary* that the Harperites consider The Economist to be far left these days.

[cybercoma]

If you think The Economist is a newspaper, you're likely the one who's never heard of it. Are you even twentysomething yet?

The Economist refers to itself as a newspaper.

[kraychik]

It is kind of *scary* that the Harperites consider The Economist to be far left these days.

Except... nobody said The Economist is far-left.

[bleeding heart]

Yes, let's marginalize the kid's opinions because of his or her age, something s/he has no control over.

Well, I might have cropped the post from which I was quoting, in order to stress the part with which I agreed.

No, I don't consider age an issue.

I do speculate that the poster in question spouts what he or she does because of a limited and obssessive adherence to a right/left paradigm, and is hostile to discussion generally.

We have a couple righties here that are just as bad.

(And let's not forget self-described "centrists," some of whom are quite extreme in their views.)

[na85]

I do speculate that the poster in question spouts what he or she does because of a limited and obssessive adherence to a right/left paradigm, and is hostile to discussion generally.

I don't necessarily disagree on this point, but we should all[/] endeavor to address the substance of each other's arguments, and not the person behind the keyboard.

[bleeding heart]

I don't necessarily disagree on this point, but we should all[/] endeavor to address the substance of each other's arguments, and not the person behind the keyboard.

Good advice, and I know you're right.

But while some posters are so inclined, others make it a bit difficult.

Edited July 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[capricorn]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper surprised many last week by choosing to forgo a major cabinet shuffle until next summer. For pundits and editorial cartoonists, the decision should be cause for celebration. By keeping his gaffe-prone, scandal-plagued cabinet intact, Harper has guaranteed a glut of good material in the year to come.

Presumably, however, Harper did not preserve his team to ensure ongoing fodder for his critics. Perhaps the prime minister believes, despite a year of political fumbles and declining poll numbers, he has the right cabinet in place to deliver on his mandate.

---

the decision to stick with the status quo is a reflection of the prime minister’s view that — with a few possible exceptions — Harper and his office are all the cabinet he needs. Under this view, cabinet shuffles are just communications exercises — and this mini one was simply a statement that the scandals and perceived gaffes of the past year were no big deal, ethically or politically.

If the polls are to be believed, an increasing number of Canadians disagree. And Harper’s refusal to acknowledge the benefit of bringing in fresh blood is another example of the arrogance and “bullying” ascribed to his government last week by the Economist.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1222973--dear-stephen-harper-thanks-for-not-shuffling-your-cabinet

According to this Toronto Star editorial, the PMs failure to radically shuffle the Cabinet is another example that Harper is a bully.

[August1991]

You've got some substantial evidence to back up your declarative sentences, I assume.

Before the 1990s, The Economist had two pages of letters to the editor. Now it has one.

IMHO, the measure of a newspaper/magazine was always the quality of its letters to the editor. (Nowadays, the online comments section.) Before 1990, their letters justified my subscription.

The Economist editors misunderstood the 1990s. True, the world opened, and the leader writers discovered a North American market, the Internet hit, they changed their font, introduced two pages of "crap/summary" and reduced their letters to one page.

IMHO, The Economist will sadly follow Time and Newsweek.

Edited July 8, 2012 by August1991

[August1991]

According to this Toronto Star editorial, the PMs failure to radically shuffle the Cabinet is another example that Harper is a bully.

And if Harper had shuffled his cabinet, then that also would be evidence that he's a bully.

---

I fear that The Toronto Star has become so federal Liberal that it may in fact promote the re-election of Stephen Harper. After all, Harper's best wish is that the federal Liberal Party survives.

Justin Trudeau as federal Liberal leader against the NDP would divide the anti-Harper vote.

Edited July 8, 2012 by August1991

[na85]

IMHO, The Economist will sadly follow Time and Newsweek.

Agree. In fact I feel that this is indicative of a greater, more widespread trend facing the journalism/media industry as a whole. With the advent of sites like Twitter, Reddit or even services like USENET, anyone with a smartphone and an internet connection can be a 'journalist'. When hundreds or even thousands of people able to present a broad spectrum of viewpoints about a particular topic or event, and those viewpoints can be disseminated instantly across the globe, then reporters are going to start finding their skills not in as much demand in the coming decade.

[Wilber]

Agree. In fact I feel that this is indicative of a greater, more widespread trend facing the journalism/media industry as a whole. With the advent of sites like Twitter, Reddit or even services like USENET, anyone with a smartphone and an internet connection can be a 'journalist'. When hundreds or even thousands of people able to present a broad spectrum of viewpoints about a particular topic or event, and those viewpoints can be disseminated instantly across the globe, then reporters are going to start finding their skills not in as much demand in the coming decade.

So we should disregard all media? Then what?

[na85]

So we should disregard all media? Then what?

Did you even read what I wrote?

Please quote where I implied or suggested we should disregard any media of any kind.

[Evening Star]

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

What does "right wing" mean to you, if not "pro-free market"? That's what I've always understood it to mean. Do you just mean that they are not social conservatives?

[Evening Star]

(The actual Economist editorial is not that great, even though I agree that Harper is a bit of a bully, especially when it come to scientists in the public sector.)

[Mr.Canada]

Please explain how a majority NDP would operate without pushing their agenda through. Perhaps some people don't understand what a majority government is.

[cybercoma]

(The actual Economist editorial is not that great, even though I agree that Harper is a bit of a bully, especially when it come to scientists in the public sector.)

I was going to say that it was actually a pretty good read, as it criticizes Harper, while at the same time pointing out what his government has done well. I think it's worth reading.

[Evening Star]

I was going to say that it was actually a pretty good read, as it criticizes Harper, while at the same time pointing out what his government has done well. I think it's worth reading.

Actually, reading it again, maybe I was unfair. You're right that it gives both pluses and minuses. The article also provides a fair amount of detail.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Evening Star

[dre]

So we should disregard all media? Then what?

No but you should definately take anything on mainstream networks with a grain of salt. Just use the headlines as an entry point into each story, and then go and find a bunch of different sources to read.

[Wilber]

No but you should definately take anything on mainstream networks with a grain of salt. Just use the headlines as an entry point into each story, and then go and find a bunch of different sources to read.

I agree. My issue is with those who would blow something off just because it was something they didn't want to hear.

[westguy]

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.

neveer, never, never.