Globe and Mail endorses Conservatives, not Harper

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Here's an interesting (to me anyways) read........


A History of (Toronto) Newspaper Endorsements

Endorsements rolled out as usual until 1963. Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservatives were in disarray: an election the year before reduced them to a minority government, cabinet ministers fled the sinking ship, and the thin-skinned PM’s paranoia was operating at full tilt. The press’s desire to ditch Dief was so strong that, for the first time in its history, the Telegram backed the Liberals. In its March 30, 1963, editorial, the Tely declared that Diefenbaker had compromised the Progressive Conservatives’ principles so much “that Canada’s position at home and abroad will immeasurably deteriorate under his continued leadership.” The move confused longtime readers; one told columnist Douglas Fisher that the act was as if “devout Christians have had to face the fact that the Bible is a false, spurious document.” Publisher John Bassett’s decision also resulted in something that hadn’t happened since 1917: unanimous support for one party among all major Toronto dailies.

more

A History of Newspaper Endorsements | politics | Torontoist
 

Vancouverite

Electoral Member
Dec 23, 2011
287
0
16
I was just going to post this link, and I would agree. But, to get Harper out, we have to get the Conservatives out, at least for this election.
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
William Thorsell was editor-in-chief of the Globe and Mail from 1989 to 2000 before becoming CEO of the Royal Ontario Museum until 2010. From time to time


“the editorial I’d write, if I were still writing them.”


An accumulation of baggage eventually weighs the owner down to the point of stumbling and falling. Mr. Harper is quite overweight in that department. In recessionary times, he is running a primary budget surplus (revenues over program spending) of some 1.4 per cent of GDP — an elementary error in Economics 101, less a matter of ideology than incompetence. Governments should not pull money out of an economy facing strong economic headwinds: We might refer to Stephen “Hoover” in this context, after the hapless U.S. president in the 1930s.

You do not cut the national sales tax in favour of targeted tax goodies in your party’s political interest. Nor do you do so to reduce Ottawa’s capacity to fund grievously inadequate infrastructure, undermining productivity and aggravating social divides. You do not claim success in energy policy having seen no new significant pipelines approved or built on your watch, either domestically or in our interest in the United States. Nor do you sit out the global conversation on climate change in words and action.

You do not exacerbate income inequality by providing significant new tax breaks for the wealthy in tax-free savings and investment accounts.

You do not fan cultural conflict in Canada in the face of unprecedented cultural diversity and high rates of immigration. Canada’s generally successful experience in accommodating diversity needs nurturing attention, not a matador’s incendiary skills

You do not acquiesce to deteriorating relations with Canada’s First Peoples. You do not evince contempt for science or, for that matter, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the courts mandated to interpret and uphold it. You do not tendentiously attack the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada as cover for your own incompetence in making laws and appointments.

You do not turn your backside to the federal nature of Canada, refusing to meet the premiers and other leaders in congress to explore and debate issues of common national concern.

On your watch, Canada’s relations with the United States appear as cool as they became in Pierre Trudeau’s latter years — a fundamental failure in a critical arena. And you have reduced Canada’s stature in the world at large through excessively partisan positions on matters of great complexity in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, for example.

Barely concealed hostility to China and the United Nations, ineffective diplomacy regarding the Arctic and a general downgrading of Canada’s foreign service personnel and facilities add yet more weight to the baggage. Only apparent enthusiasm in military matters indicates much appetite for engagement in foreign affairs.

New trade agreements may hold promise, though there has been no public consultation and we have seen no details on the large ones.

Prime ministers do not have to be eminently likeable if they are sufficiently competent and inspiring. But to demonstrate qualities of meanness with a scent of pouting in the air makes the wheels on the luggage squeak. Who but the deeply petulant would forbid his entire parliamentary caucus from speaking to the former Progressive Conservative prime minister of Canada on ethereal grounds?

Indeed, who is allowed to speak to Canadian voters themselves in Stephen Harper’s caucus — you know, the voters who hired them?

Empty chairs at public forums, gag orders on ministers of the crown, refusals to respond to media enquiries evince deep contempt for the democratic process at its most intensive phase.

All this is consistent with unprecedented contempt for Parliament in the use of closure and reliance on Brodingnagian omnibus bills — not to mention a promise to un-man the Senate, which remains an essential player under the Canadian constitution.

Yes, an unusual opportunity to “throw the bastards out” lies just a few days away, and there are reasons and a chance it may well happen.

William Thorsell: 'The editorial I'd write ... if I were still writing them' - Macleans.ca

 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
If the Conservatives end up losing this election, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the social conservatives that blindly followed Harper and promoted his agenda with no understanding that this was not in line with the wishes of the average taxpayer. They have have mistakenly thought that people that disagree with Harper are hard left. Win or lose, it would be best for their party if they grasp this and made the necessary changes. If the Liberals ever replaced Justin with a fiscal conservative a la Martin, it would be difficult for the Conservatives to hold on to more than 2 dozen seats.
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
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?

Ya. No. lol.



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

Who reads newspapers anyway?
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
A lot needs to be done to re-establish democracy in this country. Murray Dobbins writes that the place to begin is with our corporate media. They almost universally endorsed Stephen Harper. That was, perhaps, a blessing:
But the newspapers perhaps did us a favour in the last week of the campaign with their inane endorsement of the Harper autocracy for yet another four-year term. Post Media -- the most recent iteration of the Conrad Black coup in 1999 -- and the Globe and Mail without an iota of embarrassment or shame actually managed to write editorials justifying the re-election of a man turfed from office by a tsunami of voter revulsion.

The shamelessness extended without a pause to outright untruths in the Globe and Mail and the National Post editorials -- both of which declared their support because of Harper's economic record. The Globe declared: "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." And the National Post: "Harper's commendable record in office cannot be dismissed. Our economy is in good shape..."


Obviously, the majority of Canadians weren't listening -- or reading. Nonetheless, the blanket endorsement of Harper underscored whose interests the media were serving:
Those who run the country's daily newspapers reveal themselves to be as contemptuous of democracy and society as the party they endorsed. They reveal themselves as concerned only about "the economy" but for them this is just a code word for the corporate elite, the 1% -- not the economy of ordinary wage and salary earners.

The irony of this endorsement is the endorsers' fundamental belief that government -- and by extension, the voting rabble -- should not be interfering in the economy at all. It is something to be clinically separated from the exercise of public policy. Government should simply facilitate economic growth by "getting out of the way" of business by signing "trade" deals, gutting corporate and wealth taxes, and driving down wages.​
In the last thirty years, ownership of Canadian media outlets has been concentrated into a few hands, even as readership declined:


Today we can take some solace in the fact that the same demented "free market" ideology that continues to play havoc with the real Canadian economy (the 99%) is helping to weaken the newspaper industry in Canada. Newspapers that continue to ignore the wave of contempt that swept the Harperium from power will deserve their fate.

Reading the Postmedia papers is a demoralizing experience given that nowhere do you find Canadian values reflected in their reporting or opinion pieces. But when you learn that the National Post's paid subscribers (2014 numbers) total only 83,671 out of 24 million-plus eligible voters it sort of lifts your spirits (though they do get an additional 100,000 digitally). The Vancouver Sun, another Postmedia paper, manages just over 86,000.

People are going elsewhere for news. Online media experienced a big bump in visits during the election. The Tyee saw a 70 per cent jump in visits to their site during August to October as they ramped up election coverage, and rabble.ca's increased by 50 per cent -- with 880,000 individual readers and close to five million page views -- demonstrating voters' considerable appetite for "fact-based" journalism.

If the corporate media are to survive, they will have to be democratized. They will have to re-learn the definition of the phrase, "we the people."

more


Want democratic reform? Let's start with newspapers. | rabble.ca






 

Gilgamesh

Council Member
Nov 15, 2014
1,107
60
48
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?
There is nothing more irrelevant in the public sphere than the enmasculated, irrelevant, uber politically correct, pathetic excuse of a pseudo newspaper than the Globe and Mail.

And those are their good points.:)
 

Gilgamesh

Council Member
Nov 15, 2014
1,107
60
48
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?
So the G & M doesn't support Harper. I bet they also don't support Diefenbaker. He isn't running either.