Thursday, February 10, 2011

The Economist on Harper

The Economist magazine has an interesting article on Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which you should check out.

(And I am not pushing the article because I happened to be quoted in it.)

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mainstream Media Alert: When you just have to have a negative comment about Harper, you can always count on Gerry Nichols.

CanadianSense said...

This article appears to be written from a Liberal worldview.

You would expect to find this author to be employed by some left wing group employed as a revisionist in the history department.

Anonymous said...

I agree with CanadianSense.

The article -- unattributed to anyone, as far as I could see -- reads like a Liberal press release criticizing the government.
-- Gabby in QC

Anonymous said...

OK, so I tried to post another comment at The Economist site -- what I think are inaccuracies in the article, but I couldn't post the comment, for some reason. Maybe too many links?

Anyway, if Mr. Nicholls allows, I'll post those two remaining inaccuracies here.

Inaccuracy 4: From the article “scrapped a Liberal child-care scheme, replacing it with tax credits for having children”

Actually, Canadian parents can benefit from the following benefits:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/cctb/menu-eng.html
The Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB), a tax-free monthly payment made to eligible families to help them with the cost of raising children under age 18.
The CCTB may include the National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS), the federal government's contribution to the National Child Benefit initiative.
The CCTB may also include the Child Disability Benefit (CDB), a tax-free benefit for families who care for a child under age 18 who has a severe and prolonged impairment in physical or mental functions.

In addition to the Child Tax Benefit, the Conservative government implemented the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB)
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/uccb-puge/menu-eng.html, which is designed to help Canadian families by supporting their child care choices through direct financial support.

The UCCB is for children under the age of 6 years and is paid in instalments of $100 per month per child.

So, to say the Conservatives replaced a child-care scheme, which BTW the Liberals had been promising since 1993, with “tax credits for having children” is inaccurate.
-- Gabby in QC

Anonymous said...

And the final inaccuracy, according to me of course, in The Economist article ...

Inaccuracy 5: “Quebec, which he officially recognised as a “nation” in 2006 (a cause he had previously opposed …”
First of all, the PM presented a motion that stated "this House recognizes that Québécois form a nation within a united Canada” which is not the same as saying the territory known as Quebec constitutes a nation.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/22/harper-quebec.html and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/23/world/main2207543.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2207543

Furthermore, what is left untold in this article is the fact then-candidate to the Liberal party leadership Michael Ignatieff was the first to bring forward the nation question.

Seeing the growing opposition within his party, Ignatieff first backed off somewhat, and when the PM brought forward his motion in the House to obviate one from the separatist Bloc, Ignatieff then cried victory, once again owning the nation notion.

Ignatieff's proposal had initially threatened to split the Liberal party, so in effect, PM Harper saved Ignatieff and the Liberals a right royal feud among their ranks.

What Stephen Harper, at the time of the early 90s' failed Meech and Charlottetown Accords, had previously opposed was giving Quebec special status among the 10 provinces.

With the passage of more than a decade, Mr. Harper’s position changed. Is that so unusual? How many of us hold exactly the same ideas in our late forties that we held in our late twenties?

But as L. Ian Macdonald, former speechwriter to former PM Brian Mulroney, explains: “The Conservatives, from Sir John A. Macdonald to Stephen Harper, are the party of classical federalism. The Liberals, from Lester Pearson to Paul Martin, are the party of centralizing federalism.”
http://tinyurl.com/4axkak8

I'll leave it there.
-- Gabby in QC

Anonymous said...

Hey, thanks, Mr. Nicholls.
-- Gabby in QC

Gordie_Canuk said...

Great article and kudos to you for posting it. No surprise that you're getting a lot of negative feedback on it though.

I think a lot of CPC members endorse the PM's M.O. of appealing to Canadian's more liberal values to win at the ballot box...given a majority government I think the article is right, Harper would be far bolder in pursuing a more conservative and libertarian agenda.

And thanks for the fodder on Canadian Soapbox

Anonymous said...

Everybody knows why Harper is leaning left except for you Gerry. (real conservative)

Zorpheous said...

You're going to get secret CPC decoder ringer revoked Nicholis ;)