The Globe by providing the pulpit destroys any claim to editorial impartiality and, as outlined below, editorial competence. The integrity of the U of C is undermined by the way Flanagan arguments are so easily refuted. Consider the following (my emphasis in bold):
The Conservative government nearly blew itself out of the water last November when it tried to cut off $27-million a year in federal allowances to political parties. Although polls showed the idea was popular with the public, the commentariat generally panned it as a low blow against competing parties, because they are more dependent on the subsidies than the Conservatives are.
Ahem. From the January 6, 2009 edition of the same paper:
Dr. MacDermid points to the 2006 Canadian Elections Study, funded in part by Elections Canada, which asked respondents whether political parties should get public funding. More than half of those surveyed had no opinion.But, of those who did, 71 per cent said the public financing was a "good thing."
"This is the history of public finance for parties. Time and time again, in polls going back to the early '90s when the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing looked at this issue, Canadians have always said that they support public financing," Dr. MacDermid said.
S/T: Impolitical
You would think a competent editorial staff would have caught that one.
I always ask myself, how would the EG handle this sort of flub by a student in one of his classes? Does he not hold them to a high standard of accuracy? Or does he allow dogma to override reality? Perhaps it is the former. But then the U of C gave Harper an MA.
Recommend this Post
Posts
1 comment:
TOUCHE!
I might add that flanagan is well suited to the UofC; the university with the lowest rankings in Canada.
Why would we expect any better from tom let alone expect veracity?
Post a Comment