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?
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?
