Newspapers so far endorsing Conservatives almost exclusively

[wyly]

Cue the conspiracy theories...

No doubt Libby Davis would agree with you, as I understand she's fond of them.

sorry it's no conspiracy, if I'm an employer I call the shots and hire people who I hire reflect my opinion, if I own a newspaper/media chain I hire editors who reflect my views...Izzy Asper the founder of Canwest canada's largest media chain stated exactly that, all his newspapers and tv outlets were to follow his directives...

[Scotty]

sorry it's no conspiracy, if I'm an employer I call the shots and hire people who I hire reflect my opinion, if I own a newspaper/media chain I hire editors who reflect my views...Izzy Asper the founder of Canwest canada's largest media chain stated exactly that, all his newspapers and tv outlets were to follow his directives...

Yeah, but Izzy is dead, and corporate Canada only cares about hiring people who make money. The owners of the newspapers don't care what the editors do as long as they make the most possible money.

Pierre Peladeau might own the Sun but he also owns some very left wing newspapers in Quebec. He doesn't care. He just cares about all of them making him money.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Scotty

[Moonbox]

since most of canada's papers are all owned by a single source you actually expected independent opinions?...editors toe the company line...

So is that why last year the Toronto Star endorsed (lol) Dion and then one of its subsidiaries, The K-W Record, endorsed Harper?

Something doesn't add up there.

[punked]

I hear from twitter the Star is going to endorse the NDP. Crazy election.

[Scotty]

Surely moderately competent must involve facing the reality of a minority government and not acting at every turn like Parliament should exist solely for his benefit. Harper has proven a very capable political manager. As a Parliamentary leader, he has been mediocre at best.

To repeat, I don't care if John Baird dances around in parliament in drag wearing a tiara. I don't care if Harper puts a saddle on Ignatieff's shoulders and rides him around the commons yelling "Yee Haw!" and hitting him with a horse crop. I care about how the actual nation is governed, not the ridiculous nonsense at the House or the silly feuding between the Hatfields and McKoys that takes place on the Hill. None of that affects me.

Can someone explain to me again why stated policies mean anything when no one can reasonably expect to get a majority.

Are you suggesting that Harper has been able to do nothing his party wanted doing over the last five years in his minority governments? He's appointed 2 supreme courts and a huge passel of judges, for one thing, instituted changes in prisons, paroles and court policies, as well as sentencing laws, with more to come. In fact, in my opinion he could have had them all through by now but I think they've been ragging the puck to keep the crime thing alive for political purposes.

So that's just on one subject. They've also done a fair start at reforming immigration to make it more responsive to Canada's needs, as opposed to the needs of foreigners and immigrant families - which I expect a Layton led minority to reverse, with Liberal help. I also expect higher taxes, and more power to human rights commissions, employment quota systems and a radical change in foreign policy.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Scotty

[Slim MacSquinty]

Yes I also heard that the Star will endorse the NDP, not really a big suprise, they know that Iggy's done, they couldn't say anything nice about the Cons if the sun shone out of their *sses.

Interesting times, may not be so bad for the Cons afterall though, with a fairly strong minority (say 130 to 140 seats) and a small rump of Liberals (say from 15 to 30 seats) they should be able to count on liberal support as the liberals will not want to go back to the polls for a very long time, depending on the exact numbers it may be sufficient to carry them through with few if any compromises. Four or five years as the official opposition should be sufficient for the NDP to demonstrate enough lunacy to send them to the back of the line for a while.

This may prove to be a relatively stable arrangement that will eliminate the hysterical whimpering of Mark Holland and Scott Bryson and allow the conservatives to get out of protective mode and run the government in a reasonable fashion.

[cybercoma]

lol @ Harper being competent

Contempt of Parliament a competent Prime Minister does not make.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Well it seems that the editorial boards of a number of Canadian newspapers went out of their way to discuss Harper's competance, contrary to your well reasoned and ambitious opinion. As for contempt of Parliment, that was so weak that it refuses to resonate with either the electorate or the news media. In reality the only contempt of Parliment was the poor behaviour of the venemously partisan and imbecillic Parlimentarians who made up the majority of those committees.

[cybercoma]

"Imbecilic Parliamentarians" pretty much sums up the blatant disregard for parliamentary procedure, the electorate and our institutions that the Conservatives have shown during their time in office. But I'm sure the contempt ruling was just partisan poltiics.

[Moonbox]

"Imbecilic Parliamentarians" pretty much sums up the blatant disregard for parliamentary procedure, the electorate and our institutions that the Conservatives have shown during their time in office. But I'm sure the contempt ruling was just partisan poltiics.

It was a clown show of a ruling made by an angry opposition. Nobody cares because the ruling was made by a partisan opposition. Is anyone surprised? Nope.

[cybercoma]

You keep saying it doesn't matter, but it matters enough that I won't be giving Stephen Harper my vote for the 4th election in a row. They're no better than the Liberals were under Chretien at the end of his time as PM.

[msj]

Well, I find it interesting that Andrew Coyne comes down for the Liberals.

Not what I expected from him or from Maclean's magazine.

And, I can't fault the logic either.

I'm in one of those ridings where it is most likely the CPC to get in but the NDP candidate has a chance to beat him.

Had she not opened her mouth at the all-candidates meeting maybe I would vote for her.

Instead, I can't hold my nose and will likely give the LPC the two bucks per year so they can rebuild.

I agree with Coyne.

[TimG]

Had she not opened her mouth at the all-candidates meeting maybe I would vote for her.

Was there something specific or simply someone lacking what you think an MP needs?

[msj]

Was there something specific or simply someone lacking what you think an MP needs?

She (and she is NDP) states something like "first off, I would like to thank the first nations for letting us hold this forum on their land..."

I'm all for settling treaties but that statement makes me want to puke in the ballot box.

As for the CPC candidate - he is a do nothing idiot who the party should have gotten rid of long ago. Even the CPC should be ashamed of his idiocy.

[BubberMiley]

I guess the Star not endorsing the CPC is irrefutable proof that the media in general has an overwhelmingly leftist bias.

Or at least proof that conservatives have an incurable victimization complex.

[wyly]

She (and she is NDP) states something like "first off, I would like to thank the first nations for letting us hold this forum on their land..."

I'm all for settling treaties but that statement makes me want to puke in the ballot box.

that was petty of you, and demonstrates zero political logic...

[August1991]

Remind me again why the Cons whine about the liberal media?

Nobody reads the editorials and they don't even reflect the views of most journalists.

----

Well, I suppose that I have to make an exception for Coyne. I read his editorials.

Well, I find it interesting that Andrew Coyne comes down for the Liberals.

Thanks for that link.

Here's the key passage:

But the long train of offences against democratic and parliamentary principle—from proroguing Parliament, twice, to evade Parliament’s reach; to withholding documents essential to parliamentary oversight, even in defiance of Parliament’s explicit demands; to intimidating parliamentary officers and politicizing the bureaucracy; to such breaches of trust as the Emerson and Fortier appointments, the taxation of income trusts, and the evisceration of their own law on fixed election dates—are simply unforgivable.

Add to that the coarse, vicious brand of politics, the mindless partisanship for which the Tories have become known: equal parts terrorizing their own MPs and demonizing their opponents. And add to that the extreme centralization of power in the Prime Minister’s Office, the trivialization of even cabinet posts as sources of independent authority, never mind the barracking of committees . . . Enough.

These examples are nothing more than the usual fodder of democratic, parliamentary democracy.

"... coarse, vicious brand of politics... " WTF? How is this different from the way the Liberals once demonized Reform opponents? Heck, how has the opposition treated Harper?

"... extreme centralization of power... " First of all, it's not really true and secondly, Trudeau was arguably worse.

Anyway, Coyne says that he's going to vote Liberal in an election where the Liberal Party is largely irrelevant. That somehow seems fitting.

Edited April 30, 2011 by August1991

[Scotty]

You keep saying it doesn't matter, but it matters enough that I won't be giving Stephen Harper my vote for the 4th election in a row.

In other words, it doesn't matter how they govern or what they do because you'd never vote for them anyway.

[Scotty]

that was petty of you, and demonstrates zero political logic...

I disagree. Such a statement is more than sufficient for me and most of those I know to immediately write off any candidate now and forevermore, as a blithering imbecile.

[cybercoma]

In other words, it doesn't matter how they govern or what they do because you'd never vote for them anyway.

No. It matters precisely because how they govern and what they have done is the reason I will not vote for them this time. If they had a more progressive leader that wasn't constantly crapping on parliament, then I probably would be more willing to vote for them. At this point, that's a hypothetical. The reality is they completely dropped the ball on what I was expecting of them.

[Scotty]

No. It matters precisely because how they govern and what they have done is the reason I will not vote for them this time. If they had a more progressive leader that wasn't constantly crapping on parliament, then I probably would be more willing to vote for them.

You said you'd voted against them for four straight elections. So you voted against them before they were ever the government. How they behaved as a government, therefore, has no affect on your vote.

[cybercoma]

You said you'd voted against them for four straight elections. So you voted against them before they were ever the government. How they behaved as a government, therefore, has no affect on your vote.

I voted for the Conservatives in the last 4 elections. You misunderstood what I wrote.

[bloodyminded]

Because mainly it is anti Harper, but they at least are recognizing the folly and economic disaster that would be Canada should the NDP gain power.

So, the media has a profound bias, it cannot be trusted, it's too hostile and combative...except when it's critiquing someone other than the Conservatives. Then, it's just "recognizing" the plain facts.

How it achieves such dramatic turnarounds in wisdom and credibility is anyone's guess...but the proof is in the conclusions.

[TTM]

So you voted against them before they were ever the government. How they behaved as a government, therefore, has no affect on your vote.

I voted against the Conservatives federally in the 2006 election, although I was generally supportive of some of their policies. Because of how they performed in government I will never vote Conservative until they purge their leadership and refocus their policies. I voted against the Sask Party (provincial conservatives) provincially last election. However, because of how they have governed I eagerly anticipate voting for them this time around.

Your general conclusion, though not directed at me, is flawed.

[Shwa]

So, the media has a profound bias, it cannot be trusted, it's too hostile and combative...except when it's critiquing someone other than the Conservatives. Then, it's just "recognizing" the plain facts.

How it achieves such dramatic turnarounds in wisdom and credibility is anyone's guess...but the proof is in the conclusions.

Oh, and that communist old rag, the Toronto Star, is endorsing the NDP - here's the story:

Toronto Star endorses the NDP

Fortunately, this time there is a real choice. Voters who believe Canada should aspire to something greater than the crabbed, narrow vision offered by the Harper Conservatives should look to Jack Layton and the New Democrats on Monday.