 Influential British magazine slams Harper tactic OTTAWA — The Economist, an influential British magazine that once deemed Canada "rather cool" and later dubbed former prime minister Paul Martin as Mister Dithers, is not amused by Stephen Harper's recent parliamentary tactics.Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
People who read the Economist care about business.
They don't give a shit about normal stable politicians, especially a country as boring as Canada.
It's cause they can't find any real evidence of the supposed recovery, so the writers seek to switch to this...
I know, cause I read the Economist.
Posted By:
2010-01-07 17:36:07
Hey limey's.....fuck right off and sort your own rapidly sinking country out before you slag off the finest country in the world!
Wankers.
Eyebrock - pretty touchy aren't you? Seems sort of an insecure reaction to a valid point. I'm sure the Economist has printed many articles critical of the British govt as well. I guess Martin can tell us, since he reads it.
Seals, oil sands and now Harper?
Hey limey's.....fuck right off and sort your own rapidly sinking country out before you slag off the finest country in the world!
Wankers.
Was that your attitude when they called Paul Martin "Mr. Dithers"?
Seals, oil sands and now Harper?
Hey limey's.....fuck right off and sort your own rapidly sinking country out before you slag off the finest country in the world!
Wankers.
Was that your attitude when they called Paul Martin "Mr. Dithers"?
I dunno (probably not!) but I was really annoyed with the Guardian and that CBC chick's column about how she was ashamed to be Canadian because of the Oil sands.
Being a Brit that found the light and now carries a nice blue passport, I wish they would drop this imperial attitude they still cling to. Canada is no longer British North America.
The UK is in a shite state in so many different areas and those in glass houses, especially windy and badly insulated ones, shouldn't throw stones.
Agreed. It's actually one of the best and most reliable news sources out there. I wouldn't all it conservative, more centralist or moderate. It gets the 'Conservative" tag merely because it deals with finances.
Eyebrock - pretty touchy aren't you? Seems sort of an insecure reaction to a valid point. I'm sure the Economist has printed many articles critical of the British govt as well. I guess Martin can tell us, since he reads it.
I remember reading a nice piece on just how soft the UK economy really is,
and how they were going to take a big hit from this recession; they also
well predicted the house of cards that was Iceland.
It's a 90% business rag, politics only checks in when it may affect business...
For example, Serbia changing over from Milosevic, and that
starting to open things up in that market, or how Georgia will fare
after the war last year.
These are big political changes in countries.. the change of gov't from
Chretien to Martin to Harper to whoever is relatively...
peanuts.
The Economist is definitely conservative and pro business. But unlike, say, the National Post, they're not on a neocon mission. They look at all sides and take a more big picture view - ie not just what helps this quarter's bottom line, but what will keep things going in the long run. (well, maybe medium run). I have a lot of use for that sort of Conservatism.
Eyebrock - pretty touchy aren't you? Seems sort of an insecure reaction to a valid point. I'm sure the Economist has printed many articles critical of the British govt as well. I guess Martin can tell us, since he reads it.
No I'm not insecure, I just think that a comment on this from the UK isn't a credible. The average Brit know's nothing about Canada, it's politics or culture.
It's just some poncy Rodney think we are all colonials living in igloos, going to work as a lumberjack on a sled pulled by Huskys as we wave to Malcolm the Mountie in his red serge.
I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok....
The Economist is definitely conservative and pro business. But unlike, say, the National Post, they're not on a neocon mission. They look at all sides and take a more big picture view - ie not just what helps this quarter's bottom line, but what will keep things going in the long run. (well, maybe medium run). I have a lot of use for that sort of Conservatism.
Eyebrock - pretty touchy aren't you? Seems sort of an insecure reaction to a valid point. I'm sure the Economist has printed many articles critical of the British govt as well. I guess Martin can tell us, since he reads it.
No I'm not insecure, I just think that a comment on this from the UK isn't a credible. The average Brit know's nothing about Canada, it's politics or culture.
It's just some poncy Rodney think we are all colonials living in igloos, going to work as a lumberjack on a sled pulled by Huskys as we wave to Malcolm the Mountie in his red serge.
I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok....
So you're a transplanted Brit? Maybe that explains it. I think for a native Canadian it's water off a duck's back. If you're not a youngster, you're used to the Brits still trying that "those wacky colonials" shtick, and have realized long ago that it was a form of penis envy. I think younger kids don't care because Britain is irrelevant for them - even musically these days. But anyway, doesn't the Economist see itself as a global publication, that it's market is worldwide? I doubt if the article is of interest to anybody but Canadians and people thinking of investing here, since we do seem to be sliding further into global irrelevancy these days. Or maybe just facing reality - but that doesn't explain how much better the Aussies are at branding themselves, with even less population.