Globe and Mail endorses Conservatives, not Harper

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
The election of 2015 has been powered by a well-founded desire for change. But it has also been an election where the opposition has recognized the electorate’s desire for stability and continuity on all things economic. That’s why the Liberals and the New Democrats, while running on the rhetoric of change, put forward economic platforms built largely on acceptance of the Conservative status quo.

The key issue of the election should have been the economy and the financial health of Canadians. On that score, the Conservative Party has a solid record. Hardly perfect but, relatively speaking, better than most. However, the election turned into a contest over something else: a referendum on the government’s meanness, its secretiveness, its centralization of power in the most centralized Prime Minister’s Office in history, its endless quest for ever more obscure wedge issues, and its proclivity for starting culture wars rather than sticking to the knitting of sound economic and fiscal stewardship. It turned this election into a referendum on the one-man show that has become the Harper government.

.
.
.

The Conservatives have been a big tent party in the past, and they must be once again. Fiscally prudent, economically liberal and socially progressive – the party could be all of those things, and it once was. But it won’t be, as long as Mr. Harper is at its head. His party deserves to be re-elected. But after Oct. 19, he should quickly resign. The Conservative Party, in government or out, has to reclaim itself from Stephen Harper.


The Tories deserve another mandate – Stephen Harper doesn’t - The Globe and Mail


Normally I'd say a newspapers' endorsement isn't important in and of itself. It's the argument being made that deserve attention. In this case, it's an interesting point. Of course, the idea that Harper would resign should the Conservatives win is ridiculous. He won't. But is Harper the problem?

The Conservatives have used Stephen Harper's person as a selling point. When compared to Trudeau or Mulcair he's given the old steady helmsman cliche. The idea that the party is good but Harper is the problem is certainly not something the party seems to recognize. But as the Conservative party's support falls and stalls, the knives will start coming out.

Would the Conservatives be better off with a new leader? Would they have been in this election? The election isn't over so the postmortem is premature, but if polls are accurate the Conservatives haven't been able to get off the ground. Is this the excuse Conservatives will use to make themselves feel better?
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Not Harpy?
Maybe Galen Weston then? Because he wouldn't feed us anything he wouldn't feed his family, right?
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
In 2004 when the Conservatives had their first and last leadership election, Belinda Stronach came in 2nd. Maybe they could bring her back?

Ah, things ended badly there, but they've had a long time to build people up. Any cabinet ministers particularly bright stars?
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
uhoh Flossy viewed that vid about the Vets so now there'll be a couple dozen anti-Fantino threads show up in the next day or so.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
In 2004 when the Conservatives had their first and last leadership election, Belinda Stronach came in 2nd. Maybe they could bring her back?

Ah, things ended badly there, but they've had a long time to build people up. Any cabinet ministers particularly bright stars?
Naw ... she crossed the floor and broke Peter MacKay's heart in the process
 

davesmom

Council Member
Oct 11, 2015
2,084
0
36
Southern Ontario
What the hell is this Globe and Mail endorsement supposed to mean? They like the Conservative Party platform and policies but they don't like the leader who put them in place?
This election is nothing but a popularity contest!! 'We don't like Harper's personality'; 'We don't like Harper's style'; We don't like Harper's hair'; ' We don't like Harper's tie'.
BooHoo! Do you want a Prime Minister who will invite you to dinner and attend your parties? Get a life! You don't have to like the man, it's his getting things done that's what counts.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
What the hell is this Globe and Mail endorsement supposed to mean? They like the Conservative Party platform and policies but they don't like the leader who put them in place?
This election is nothing but a popularity contest!! 'We don't like Harper's personality'; 'We don't like Harper's style'; We don't like Harper's hair'; ' We don't like Harper's tie'.
BooHoo! Do you want a Prime Minister who will invite you to dinner and attend your parties? Get a life! You don't have to like the man, it's his getting things done that's what counts.

A lot of people think the G&M is a liberal paper. It endorsed Stephen Harper in 2006, 2008 and 2011. It even endorsed the Progressive Conservatives in 1997. The PCs had 2 seats in 1997. It's an establishment conservative paper. True blue cons, not reformed-Reform. Who supports a party but doesn't personally like a leader? Party members. They have the ideology of the old guard left over from the merger that supported the new former-Reformist leader out of unity but are coming back now that Harper looks vulnerable.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
The election of 2015 has been powered by a well-founded desire for change. But it has also been an election where the opposition has recognized the electorate’s desire for stability and continuity on all things economic. That’s why the Liberals and the New Democrats, while running on the rhetoric of change, put forward economic platforms built largely on acceptance of the Conservative status quo.

The key issue of the election should have been the economy and the financial health of Canadians. On that score, the Conservative Party has a solid record. Hardly perfect but, relatively speaking, better than most. However, the election turned into a contest over something else: a referendum on the government’s meanness, its secretiveness, its centralization of power in the most centralized Prime Minister’s Office in history, its endless quest for ever more obscure wedge issues, and its proclivity for starting culture wars rather than sticking to the knitting of sound economic and fiscal stewardship. It turned this election into a referendum on the one-man show that has become the Harper government.

.
.
.

The Conservatives have been a big tent party in the past, and they must be once again. Fiscally prudent, economically liberal and socially progressive – the party could be all of those things, and it once was. But it won’t be, as long as Mr. Harper is at its head. His party deserves to be re-elected. But after Oct. 19, he should quickly resign. The Conservative Party, in government or out, has to reclaim itself from Stephen Harper.


The Tories deserve another mandate – Stephen Harper doesn’t - The Globe and Mail


Normally I'd say a newspapers' endorsement isn't important in and of itself. It's the argument being made that deserve attention. In this case, it's an interesting point. Of course, the idea that Harper would resign should the Conservatives win is ridiculous. He won't. But is Harper the problem?

The Conservatives have used Stephen Harper's person as a selling point. When compared to Trudeau or Mulcair he's given the old steady helmsman cliche. The idea that the party is good but Harper is the problem is certainly not something the party seems to recognize. But as the Conservative party's support falls and stalls, the knives will start coming out.

Would the Conservatives be better off with a new leader? Would they have been in this election? The election isn't over so the postmortem is premature, but if polls are accurate the Conservatives haven't been able to get off the ground. Is this the excuse Conservatives will use to make themselves feel better?

I'd go for Scott Reid myself: he's more libertarian on many fronts. In reality though, though I'd consider voting for him, I'm not sure most Canadians or even members of his own party would. I'd say he's probably too libertarian for most Canadians' taste.

I don't think any newspaper seeking credibility should be endorsing any candidate.

Now that I agree with. Whatever happened to journalistic objectivity?
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,843
92
48
A lot of people think the G&M is a liberal paper. It endorsed Stephen Harper in 2006, 2008 and 2011. It even endorsed the Progressive Conservatives in 1997. The PCs had 2 seats in 1997. It's an establishment conservative paper. True blue cons, not reformed-Reform. Who supports a party but doesn't personally like a leader? Party members. They have the ideology of the old guard left over from the merger that supported the new former-Reformist leader out of unity but are coming back now that Harper looks vulnerable.
The Gob and Puke is not a conservative publication.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
uhoh Flossy viewed that vid about the Vets so now there'll be a couple dozen anti-Fantino threads show up in the next day or so.

I've already lambasted Fantino many times in the past.

He's a regular in the conbot rotation but I will miss him.


 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
I don't think any newspaper seeking credibility should be endorsing any candidate.

media ain't about credibility.

it's about money, power and prestige...the aim is to become the moral and so-called intellectual superior element of humanity.

using murky 'ratings' they can convince advertisers to back their currently popular sh!t and pretty much have carte blanche to behave like your betters.

it's about their propaganda, their free subway papers, their uh, cool and hip apps for the phones of the drones that swipe and click their way through them.

the media is the message (and the messenger both) man. the crack and the dealer.
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Globe and Mail heroically defend country's most vulnerable rich by endorsing Conservatives

In what is being called an act of steadfast principle to the nation’s vulnerable wealthy class, the Globe and Mail has endorsed the Conservative Party for the 2015 federal election.

“The Conservatives have remained committed to defending the well-off who are at risk of falling into the ranks of the upper middle class,” explained the Globe’s Editor-in-Chief David Walmsley. “An increase to the income tax for those who make over $200,000 will push the upper class into buying fewer luxury products and low-end Rolls Royces. How could we live in a country that doesn’t accept gross and excessive wealth while taxing it at a higher rate?”

Walmsley used the example of a hypothetical, defenceless editor of a major national newspaper who only makes a measly $600,000. If he (or she) were to pay more in taxes on income, he (or she) would have to transfer the difference onto the readership through things like charging readers to access certain online content.

“Readers would not be able to read endorsements and know who to vote for in future elections!” added Walmsley.

However, the Globe’s endorsement was careful not to say anything nice about Stephen Harper, except that he’s done an excellent job thus far and he should be re-elected.

“Harper should not continue to be the leader, but his legacy, personality and tactics defending vulnerable people of excess must remain.”

Globe and Mail heroically defend country's most vulnerable rich by endorsing Conservatives - The Beaverton - North America's Trusted Source of News
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I can see what they were going for, even if it wasn't well considered.

The thing is that this election was about social values and it proved that we need to talk about these things instead of focusing exclusively on the economy.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I can see what they were going for, even if it wasn't well considered.

The thing is that this election was about social values and it proved that we need to talk about these things instead of focusing exclusively on the economy.

Social values? Human rights?

Bah humbug! If kuting fonding for the edjukeishun of tshildjrin on rezurvz can seiv mi u dalar in taksiz, so be it.

Besaidz, hu niids un edjukeishun aniwei.
 
Last edited: