Three reasons why it's time for a change

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Canada has been well served by 12-plus years of Liberal rule. Despite what the opposition parties would have us believe, it has not been all scandal and nest-feathering.

Ask yourself a simple multiple of Ronald Reagan's famous electoral question: Are you better off today than you were 12 years ago? Unemployment then stood at 11.2 per cent. Today, it is 6.5 per cent. An average mortgage rate was 8.78 per cent. Now it is 5.99 per cent, making home ownership affordable for hundreds of thousands more Canadians. The national debt has fallen from 66.5 per cent of gross domestic product to 38.7 per cent. Taxes are down; our standard of living is up.

On a more qualitative level, while much of the world has struggled with intolerance, Canada has emerged as a beacon of diversity — home to newcomers from around the world and confident enough of managing differences to become one of the early adopters of same-sex marriage.

The Liberal years certainly have not been without their failings, from the gun registry to the sponsorship scandal to the fumbling of the income-trust issue. But there is no denying we are better off than when Jean Chrétien first came to power with Paul Martin at his side.
Nonetheless, we have concluded that the time has arrived for a change of government in Canada. Three reasons stand out above all.

1. While the past 12 years have been relatively good ones, the law of diminishing returns has been eroding Liberal effectiveness since at least the 2000 election. A change of leadership in 2003 has failed to reverse the process.

The government of Canada, long of tooth and short of energy, is mired in policy gridlock. Hard choices give way to easy spending, and long-term thinking is overwhelmed by short-term calculation. Lacking firm policy anchors, a heavily politi-cized Prime Minister's Office bobs from issue du jour to issue du jour, neglecting enduring challenges in favour of quick hits that hold out the promise of instant gratification. Thus, from nowhere, comes a proposal to outlaw the notwithstanding clause. Apologize, spend, line up behind the parade; it's hardly inspiring, even if a mean-spirited minority Parliament deserves some of the blame.

Moreover, Liberal verities hinder rather than assist the finding of answers to such challenges as increasing productivity, fixing an unwieldy and politicized immigration system, steadying relations with the United States and confronting the real ills of the health-care system. Too often, ministers have resorted to the politically correct course: waving a Kyoto agreement rather than tackling greenhouse-gas emissions, or throwing money at aboriginal problems. Fresh thinking is demanded, but the same old elected officials supported by the same old circle of advisers naturally come up with the same old solutions.

Continued - Globe & Mail
 

Triple_R

Electoral Member
Jan 8, 2006
179
0
16
For the Globe and Mail, which is a center-left newspaper in my view (at this time, it wasn't always), to essentially endorse Harper, is huge.

I think this could have a significant impact in Ontario. I'll be closely watching the poll numbers in the days to come.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Three reasons why it's time for a change

Triple_R said:
For the Globe and Mail, which is a center-left newspaper in my view (at this time, it wasn't always), to essentially endorse Harper, is huge.

I think this could have a significant impact in Ontario. I'll be closely watching the poll numbers in the days to come.


Globe and Mail centre left? yeah centre right of the nazi's! Globe and Mail is the poster paper for the Progressive Conservative Party and centre right liberals.... for like ever!!!! Come on get your papers right


Toronto Star
Liberal... with a little lean to the NDP

The Sun
Conservative, PC

The National
Conservative, PC, right wing liberals.

The Globe and Mail
Right wing Liberal, PC

and well thats all of them I think.

oh... if you include one of the larger Toronto Pops,

Now Mag
NDP, Left wing Liberal.



Globe and Mail, centre left.... man you really have to be bed buddies with Hitler to believe that.




Edit:
and just for a reminder, Paul Martin has always been seen as the poster boy for the economic right wing of the party. or a centre right liberal. He's moved to the left slightly since becoming the PM. As some of us may remember the leadership fights between Jean and Paul where from Left to right of the party.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
The Globe and Mail has been supporting Martin and most of the election coverage has been Liberal centered....it's interesting to see the subtle change.
 

Triple_R

Electoral Member
Jan 8, 2006
179
0
16
Re: RE: Three reasons why it's time for a change

Finder said:
Triple_R said:
For the Globe and Mail, which is a center-left newspaper in my view (at this time, it wasn't always), to essentially endorse Harper, is huge.

I think this could have a significant impact in Ontario. I'll be closely watching the poll numbers in the days to come.


Globe and Mail centre left? yeah centre right of the nazi's! Globe and Mail is the poster paper for the Progressive Conservative Party and centre right liberals.... for like ever!!!! Come on get your papers right


Toronto Star
Liberal... with a little lean to the NDP

The Sun
Conservative, PC

The National
Conservative, PC, right wing liberals.

The Globe and Mail
Right wing Liberal, PC

and well thats all of them I think.

oh... if you include one of the larger Toronto Pops,

Now Mag
NDP, Left wing Liberal.



Globe and Mail, centre left.... man you really have to be bed buddies with Hitler to believe that.




Edit:
and just for a reminder, Paul Martin has always been seen as the poster boy for the economic right wing of the party. or a centre right liberal. He's moved to the left slightly since becoming the PM. As some of us may remember the leadership fights between Jean and Paul where from Left to right of the party.

Why do you bring up Hitler and the Nazis? The Nazis were the "Nationalist Socialist" Party of Germany. They were nationalist, but they were also socialist. They were an unique (and terrible) mixture of the extreme right, and the extreme left. I can't think of any mainstream North American political party that even comes close to their overall political positions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but The Globe and Mail are on the left of most cultural/social issues (i.e. their stance on abortion, same-sex couples, gay rights issues in general, etc...) . On fiscal issues, I would consider them centrist. Hence, I consider them center-left (centrist on fiscal issues, left on cultural/social issues). If you can link me to a few Globe and Mail editorials that take a conservative position on a cultural/social issue, than I'll concede the point to you. As is, I can't recall reading a singal Globe and Mail editorial with a socially conservative perspective.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
The Nazis were not socialist at all. They came from Bavaria or a province and they were a radical fringe right party.

Back to the point;

Globe and Mail centre left? yeah centre right of the nazi's! Globe and Mail is the poster paper for the Progressive Conservative Party and centre right liberals.... for like ever!!!! Come on get your papers right


Toronto Star
Liberal... with a little lean to the NDP

The Sun
Conservative, PC

The National
Conservative, PC, right wing liberals.

The Globe and Mail
Right wing Liberal, PC

and well thats all of them I think.

oh... if you include one of the larger Toronto Pops,

Now Mag
NDP, Left wing Liberal.



Globe and Mail, centre left.... man you really have to be bed buddies with Hitler to believe that.

I agree that the Globe and Mail is left on some social issues but it supports the Cons. I wouldn't be able to respond to the others.
 

Triple_R

Electoral Member
Jan 8, 2006
179
0
16
Jersay said:
The Nazis were not socialist at all. They came from Bavaria or a province and they were a radical fringe right party.

Back to the point;

Globe and Mail centre left? yeah centre right of the nazi's! Globe and Mail is the poster paper for the Progressive Conservative Party and centre right liberals.... for like ever!!!! Come on get your papers right


Toronto Star
Liberal... with a little lean to the NDP

The Sun
Conservative, PC

The National
Conservative, PC, right wing liberals.

The Globe and Mail
Right wing Liberal, PC

and well thats all of them I think.

oh... if you include one of the larger Toronto Pops,

Now Mag
NDP, Left wing Liberal.



Globe and Mail, centre left.... man you really have to be bed buddies with Hitler to believe that.

I agree that the Globe and Mail is left on some social issues but it supports the Cons. I wouldn't be able to respond to the others.

The Nazis believed in a purely state-ran economy, if I remember correctly. The private sector and the public sector was united into one under them. "Socialist" might be the wrong name for it, but it's certainly not conservative.

Yes, the Globe and Mail are now supporting the cons. And yes, that's odd, given their stand on social issues. That's why their support could make an impact.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
The Nazis believed in a purely state-ran economy, if I remember correctly. The private sector and the public sector was united into one under them. "Socialist" might be the wrong name for it, but it's certainly not conservative.

Originally, Nazi was invented by analogy to Sozi (a common and slightly pejorative term for the Nazis' main opponents, the socialists in Germany). The Nazis from the era of the Third Reich rarely referred to themselves as "Nazis", preferring the official term "National Socialists" instead. Nazi was most commonly used as a pejorative term; however, its use became so widespread that, currently, some Neo-Nazis also use it to describe themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
excuse me? Nasi's were socialists? in what world are we talking about. They were as socialist as Progressive Conservatives were progressive.

Dude, I can register a political party called "Finders Facsist Communist Conservatives" tomorrow, or perhaps, the Liberal Conservative Party of Canada. Anyhow you can call yourself anything you want.

Nazi's were facists, they jailed and killed Communists and socialists. They hated Marxism or anything which looked marxist, socialist, social democratic or Liberal, and then even conservative's who didn't agree with them.

Socialism main priniaples, that is for any kind of socialism, be it marxist, social democratic, christain utopian or British guild socialism, is that of equility. Nowtypes of socialism I just mentioned added things to this bug equility is the main princiaple and nobody can argue that. This can come from marxism which believes on it at a extremist point where everyone should have the same wealth, status and what not. Each according to there needs. Or guild socialism, the right of unions and decent wages. Democratic socialism, to that of elected socialism and state ownership of some factories. To social democracy the evening out of capitalism to make sure you take care of all people.

Facsism, nazism, is simple the reverse of this. A belief in that your people are pretty much better then anybody else.

Being a social democrat, I take offence with someone this day and age believing the nazi's to be socialists, when they murdered anyone who called themselves a socialist, communist, Liberal, social democrat.

Do you want me to start listing links to sources which will tell you such. I will if need be.
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
To some socialism is a transitional and temporary phase—albeit a necessary one—whereby a state controls access to resources and provides services while preparing for the eventual transition to communism.

But right wing states also have historically used a strategy where they controlled resources and provided services as well. The fascist states of Portugal under Salazar and Spain under Franco used corporatism to manage resources and control the population. This paternalistic form of state management is very similar to state socialism as practiced by more left leaning countries for an entirely different purpose.

This is kind of a weird digression anyway. But as long as we are in this mode I see the Globe and Mail as the propagandist arm of the ruling elite and as such is not biased by political ideology. They are acting in their own self interest and that self-interest is to assist in preserving the class structure. The liberals have run their course and the population is starting to get suspicious so some new players need to be brought in. Nothing unusual in this endorsement.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Go point Finder.

Go to Wikipedia at least and you will find out about the Nazis. They put socialist in their name because that was their arch enemy.

However, there are more links that you could fine. :D
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
I have to agree with Finder, calling the Nazi's socialists because of the "socialist" in the party title is nonsense. Their ideology was vague and mystical, it was not a system of well-defined principles but rather a glorification of prejudice and myth with elements of nihilism.

However, Finder is alluding that progressive parties can only be those with left leaning ideology, which I personally find to be just as nonsense. Progressivism is a philosophy that advocates positive social changes, and these changes are a matter of opinion to each individual, be it on the right or left.
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
The Nazis were certainly not socialist. Meshing government and big industry as they did is more facism. Anyway, its irrelevant. The political spectrum is more like a circle. The closer you get to one end, the more it starts to resemble the opposite extreme.