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

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
The Economist to Harper: Your bullying ways are giving the NDP a chance

CALGARY — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been ridiculed for being a bully in a scathing editorial by the influential Economist news magazine.

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.”

The magazine said that during his years as prime minister Harper has “acquired a reputation for playing fast and loose with the rules.”

“Though the prime minister once campaigned as a crusader for accountability and openness, he has acquired the habit of secrecy,” the editorial said.

It cited Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’s controversial remarks that anyone who opposed giving police easier access to Internet users’ browsing histories was a supporter of child pornographers as an example of the government’s “intolerance of criticism and dissent.”

The magazine said the Conservative government has accomplishments too, citing the country’s economic growth forecast this year and saying the economy stands out from its peers.

But it warned Harper the NDP under Thomas Mulcair was fast becoming more “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.

Seemingly unfazed by any criticism, Harper yesterday claiming it will be next summer before there are any major changes to his government’s front benches.

Speaking on an Alberta radio show, Harper ruled out both a major cabinet shuffle and prorogation of the House of Commons until the government reaches the halfway point of its majority mandate.

Prorogation is when the legislature “resets” itself with a throne speech and new bills. Harper said he considered the move, but decided against it for the time being.

“I didn’t see any reason to do it right now. We’ve still got a number of pieces of legislation we do want to pass,” Harper told host Dave Rutherford, whose show is broadcast province wide on CHQR and CHED.

“I think what I am more likely to do … is probably in mid-term — we will probably have a new session mid-term.”

Harper said the performance of cabinet ministers will be assessed halfway through his government’s mandate and that’s when any big changes will be made.

“We’ll take a look at how everybody is performing and make some major changes at that point,” he said. “But I think between now and then let’s keep everybody focused on the job we got elected to do.”
Harper’s Conservatives won a majority in May 2011 and the fixed-election-date law calls for the next vote in October 2015.

Under the Constitution, the Governor General can dissolve Parliament and call an election at any time and Harper has suggested he is flexible about the fixed date if it conflicts with provincial elections. If the timelines hold, however, the halfway point in the mandate would be August of next year.

Cabinet shuffle talk heated up this week following the resignation of embattled International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda.

While it was expected that hole might be filled as part of a wide-ranging shakeup, Harper only made a minor tweak.

Associate minister of defence Julian Fantino, the government’s front man on the fumbled F-35 fighter jet file, was moved to Oda’s spot. Fantino’s old duties were handed off to New Brunswick MP Bernard Valcourt, minister of state for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay was one of the ministers thought to be up for a change this summer as he’s also been dogged by the controversy over fighter-jet spending.

But Harper said MacKay isn’t going anywhere.

“We’re right in the middle of a whole lot of important initiatives that we launched right after the campaign and I want to see our ministers focused on those things and carrying them through.”

Moving forward, Harper said the economy will be his government’s top priority.

“The country as you know, like the whole rest of the world, has been through a very difficult period with the economic crisis of ’08-’09. We’ve come out of that well,” Harper said on the radio show.

“What we’ve said our goal is now, is not just to make sure we continue to come out of it, but that this country does not face the problems that we’re seeing in Europe, the United States and Japan — that rather than being one of these old economic powers that’s in trouble, we want to make sure we join the club of the emerging economic powers.”

The Economist to Stephen Harper: Your bullying ways are giving the NDP a chance | News | National Post
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
140
63
Backwater, Ontario.
:lol:.....



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


ANYONE else would fast become "more credible"
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
:lol:.....



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


ANYONE else would fast become "more credible"


You crazy lefty commie pinko.

 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
WTF?

Even Mulroney wasn't this bad!

Harper and Putin, birds of a feather

It's a pity that Russian President Vladimir Putin did not attend the American-hosted G8 Summit at Camp David, Maryland this May.If he did, maybe Canadian PM Stephen Harper could have given him a smile and a handshake for the way that Putin's regime has success-fully targeted NGOs that op-pose government policy.

Why the hypothetical handshake? Last Friday, the Putin-controlled Russian parliament gave its initial backing to a contentious new bill forcing internationally-funded NGOs engaged in "political" activities to carry a "foreign agent" designation and to post the label "foreign agent" on their websites and publications.

Does that language sound familiar?

It should. This January Harper's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver used the same political labelling technique when he said that "environmental and other radical groups" used "foreign funds" to block major projects and undermine Canada's economy.

Aside from the "foreign agents" label, Putin's new legislation also calls for additional state monitoring of groups receiving foreign funding that have an "influence on public opinion."

This too should be music to Harper's ears.

Just this February, Tory Senator Nicole Eaton (a former Conservative fund-raiser whose previous claim to fame was calling the Canadian beaver a "19th century has-been," a "dentally defective rat," and a "toothy tyrant") sponsored a Senate inquiry into environmental charities and "funding by foreign foundations." During the inquiry, she set her sights on "master manipulators who are operating under the guise of charitable organizations in an effort to manipulate our policies for their own gain."

Back to Russia. When it passes - and notice that's a "when", not an "if" - Putin's new bill will create a number of additional reporting and accounting requirements for charities receiving money from abroad and will punish non-compliance with hefty new fines, or up to four years in jail.

Meanwhile, in Canada, Harper's March 2012 budget earmarked $8-million for the Canada Revenue Agency to target registered charities for additional compliance checks and indicated that charities would have to re-port more information about their political activities and sources of foreign funding.

In Russia, one of the bill's authors said that the legislation would not harm the work of NGOs involved in charity work as opposed to politics.

"(The bill's) purpose is the openness towards society, towards citizens," Irina Yarovaya told Russia's Parliament last Friday.

In Canada, it was Harper's budget document that did the talking, essentially saying the same thing.

The budget document praised openness towards society at large, noting "calls for greater public transparency related to the political activities of charities, including the extent to which they may be funded by foreign sources." It also promised stepped-up "measures to ensure that charities devote their resources primarily to charitable, rather than political, activities, and to enhance public transparency and accountability in this area."

In Russia, NGOs that oppose Putin's favoured policies or that try to hold Russian elites to account face constant legal pressure from the state, especially tax authorities. They also face constant rhetorical attacks, with Putin himself famously remarking in 2007 that "there are still those people in our country who act like jackals at foreign embassies ... who count on the support of foreign funds and governments but not the support of their own people."

In Canada, they're not jackals, but money launderers. Or at least that's how Harper's Environment Minister Peter Kent framed it in April and May, when he said that charitable environmental groups are being used "to launder offshore foreign funds for inappropriate use against Canadian interest."

While a Canadian "climate of fear" obviously differs from its harsher Russian equivalent, it should nonetheless concern Canadians that their Prime Minister is taking pages right out of that great democrat Vladimir Putin's playbook.

It should also concern Canadians that environ-mentalist David Suzuki has already stepped down from the board of his own foundation fearing that his political views could put its charitable status at risk, and alarm bells should be ringing each time a Minister, Senator, MP or spokesperson gives Vladimir Putin yet another reason to hypothetically shake Stephen Harper's hand.

Harper and Putin, birds of a feather
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,843
92
48
Everyone knows that Harper is the worst PM we've ever had. I'm looking forward to voting him in again.