2015 Endorsements

[cybercoma]

Maybe the Globe is predicting a Liberal minority and is making an early case for putting pressure on the CPC to dump Harper. Who knows.

I've heard that the paper's ownership decides who the paper will endorse and the editorial staff are charged with writing the endorsement. There are some journalists who are saying that this was a way for the editorial staff to show their disagreement with the ownership, while still honouring their request in principle.

[cybercoma]

Please. You are an NDP voter. You've mentioned it more than once.

Smallc is soundly a Progressive Conservative, but that party doesn't exist anymore and Harper killed any part of that which existed in the Conservative Party. Progressive Conservatives will find themselves most at home with the Liberal Party now and that's why Smallc will end up voting Liberal. It's also why Brian Mulroney criticized Harper earlier this year and stopped just short of endorsing Trudeau.

[cybercoma]

In any political partisan's mind, anything less than blind loyalty is a sign of inappropriate, unorthodox and even blasphemous intent.

You certainly won't see any of that from me.

We see that more from you than nearly everyone else on this forum. Edited October 17, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Indeed. Opposition supporters didn't think Harper would be able to stay on in 2006 or 2008 either.

The Tories weren't polling at 30% in 2008, nor 2006. In fact, if you take a look at those 2006 numbers, this election looks a lot like 2006, except with the Liberals and Conservatives flipped.

[cybercoma]

Drivel. Aside from the ongoing fiddling with Senate expense accounts - which has probably been going on for a century - the corruption under Harper has been drastically less than under the last several governments.

I don't remember any of Mulroney or Chrétien's MPs being thrown in jail. I don't remember their parties pleading guilty to election fraud and tampering with evidence. I don't remember their sitting governments being found in contempt of parliament.

But hey, you keep telling yourself how ethical Harper's party has been if that makes you feel better about your vote.

[Smallc]

With the Quebec numbers from Leger this morning, it's starting to look like 2011 in reverse.

[Moonlight Graham]

I've heard that the paper's ownership decides who the paper will endorse and the editorial staff are charged with writing the endorsement. There are some journalists who are saying that this was a way for the editorial staff to show their disagreement with the ownership, while still honouring their request in principle.

Even if it were the editorial staff who decided, I never understood how they could all seemingly agree, as they pretend in the write-ups (they use "we"). In short, I call BS on paper endorsements. If editorial staff instead spend their time doing investigative journalism instead of trying to influence our opinions with theirs we'd be better off IMO.

[cybercoma]

The best part about the endorsements, most of which always go to the Conservatives, is that it makes the "liberal media!" people look like fools.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm wondering what people would say is not safe about the platform?

It's not necessarily the platform itself - which is a mile wide and an inch deep - it's the influence behind the party. It should be apparent to all that Trudeau is just a figurehead. I live in Ontario and have suffered through the McGuinty/Wynne years - where General Butts was a leading figure behind the scenes. Butts has been Trudeau's principal advisor - and will continue to be so. That's a huge red flag. The ORPP/CPP issue is another flag. Jumping out in front of the US to be a "leader" on Climate Change is another. Throwing more money indiscriminately at First Nations, another. Refusing any combat roles as part of an alliance with Western countries, another. I have absolutely no confidence that Trudeau has the intelligence to manage Butts and the backroom boys. If you think the PMO has too much power now - just watch what would happen under Trudeau. There is no leadership. That's what's not safe.

[cybercoma]

It's not necessarily the platform itself

So then the opinion is based on fantasy and speculation.

[poochy]

How can you endorse conservative policies, while believing the leader has complete control over every aspect of the party, and not endorse it's leader?

[Smallc]

It's not necessarily the platform itself - which is a mile wide and an inch deep.

By comparison, the Conservative platform is an inch deep but far less than a mile wide. I just don't see what it is you're seeing here. I started out not even considering the Liberals in this election, but I've come to appreciate Trudeau and the Liberal party. Their platform makes the most sense to me on pretty much every issue, and Trudeau has proven to not be the idiot I thought he was in the first debate.

[kimmy]

These four posts sum up exactly why I feel think this endorsement is monumentally stupid:

How can you endorse conservative policies, while believing the leader has complete control over every aspect of the party, and not endorse it's leader?

This is the most ridiculous endorsement ever. Harper IS the Conservative Party. His office prints the members' talking points for question period. Nobody can speak in public without his permission. If it weren't for Harper, the social conservatives would run amok and the party would be worse than it is now. Harper's the only reason the party even approximates the vision that the G&M has.

Exactly CC! He is not going to resign, he's the one people are voting for and as you said, he's the one at the helm with all the policies that the G&M is endorsing. It's meaningless (and ridiculous).

I agree it's ridiculous. First of all, they're endorsing something which doesn't exist (a Harper-less CPC). He controls so much of the party and shapes so much of its policy, good or bad, that it's ridiculous to support hypotheticals from fantasy-land. Second, Harper has the endorsement and confidence of the CPC party itself (or he wouldn't be its leader), and this speaks volumes of the competency, ideology, and ethics of the party that supports him.

First off, why would you vote for a party with no idea who would become Prime Minister if they win?

Second, I find it difficult to believe that the CPC would be *better* without Harper.

Third, why would one assume that the aspects of the CPC that they don't like would improve without Harper, or that the stuff they do like about the CPC would remain the same without Harper?

Argus floated this idea some months ago: what if the CPC made Harper's resignation part of their election platform? Promise to find a new PM after the election? If I recall his support for the idea was based on the assumption that somebody he likes, like Jason Kenney, would win. But that's just an assumption. The truth is we don't have any idea what a post-Harper CPC would be like.

Supporting the CPC on the assumption that Harper will step down and the party will be better after he's gone is like buying a computer case with no CPU inside. The salesguy assures you that it'll have a CPU installed after you pay for it, but can't tell you how much memory it'll have, how fast the processor runs, or even operating system will be installed.

-k

[ToadBrother]

Argus floated this idea some months ago: what if the CPC made Harper's resignation part of their election platform? Promise to find a new PM after the election? If I recall his support for the idea was based on the assumption that somebody he likes, like Jason Kenney, would win. But that's just an assumption. The truth is we don't have any idea what a post-Harper CPC would be like.

Supporting the CPC on the assumption that Harper will step down and the party will be better after he's gone is like buying a computer case with no CPU inside. The salesguy assures you that it'll have a CPU installed after you pay for it, but can't tell you how much memory it'll have, how fast the processor runs, or even operating system will be installed.

-k

I have never heard of an election where a party made it a platform plank that they'd turf their leader if elected. It's pretty goofy. To my mind, that's little more than a vote of no confidence in your party "We suck right now, but not to worry, we'll find a new driver if you give us a chance..."

[TimG]

These four posts sum up exactly why I feel think this endorsement is monumentally stupid:

Only if you insist in taking it literally. I interpret it to mean that they endorse none of a the parties available to voters but have most confidence in CPC economic policies. The latter may be a case of the 'devil you know'. The odd endorsement may also reflect a disconnect between the editorial board and the publisher.

[ToadBrother]

It's not necessarily the platform itself - which is a mile wide and an inch deep - it's the influence behind the party. It should be apparent to all that Trudeau is just a figurehead. I live in Ontario and have suffered through the McGuinty/Wynne years - where General Butts was a leading figure behind the scenes. Butts has been Trudeau's principal advisor - and will continue to be so. That's a huge red flag. The ORPP/CPP issue is another flag. Jumping out in front of the US to be a "leader" on Climate Change is another. Throwing more money indiscriminately at First Nations, another. Refusing any combat roles as part of an alliance with Western countries, another. I have absolutely no confidence that Trudeau has the intelligence to manage Butts and the backroom boys. If you think the PMO has too much power now - just watch what would happen under Trudeau. There is no leadership. That's what's not safe.

The way I read it, you're worried that the Liberals will keep their campaign promises.

As to leadership, I guess we will just have to wait and see. I'm more hopeful that Cabinet and committees will regain some influence, and we won't need to have Machiavelli's Prince sitting in the PMO playing the entire senior levels of government like a one man band. I think we could use a lot less of that management style.

[Bryan]

Smallc is soundly a Progressive Conservative, but that party doesn't exist anymore and Harper killed any part of that which existed in the Conservative Party. Progressive Conservatives will find themselves most at home with the Liberal Party now and that's why Smallc will end up voting Liberal. It's also why Brian Mulroney criticized Harper earlier this year and stopped just short of endorsing Trudeau.

We have PCs (and Liberals) in Manitoba and he voted NDP.

[msj]

If you check out the hashtag #MoreGlobeEndorsements you will see how much fun people are having mocking the G&M endorsement.

If you follow Jesse Brown/Canadaland on Twitter you will have also noticed that the National Post has endorsed Harper while Andrew Coyne's column is not in today's' paper because his column was going to endorse someone else contra the NP's ownership.

Interesting since presumably Coyne signed off on the lead endorsement.

The best, though, is former G&M editor William Thorsell's "endorsement:" https://medium.com/@InklessPW/throwout-by-william-thorsell-986c7546f921

[Bryan]

We see that more from you than nearly everyone else on this forum.

It does not describe me whatsoever. Not even remotely.

[ToadBrother]

If you check out the hashtag #MoreGlobeEndorsements you will see how much fun people are having mocking the G&M endorsement.

If you follow Jesse Brown/Canadaland on Twitter you will have also noticed that the National Post has endorsed Harper while Andrew Coyne's column is not in today's' paper because his column was going to endorse someone else contra the NP's ownership.

Interesting since presumably Coyne signed off on the lead endorsement.

The best, though, is former G&M editor William Thorsell's "endorsement:" https://medium.com/@InklessPW/throwout-by-william-thorsell-986c7546f921

I wonder if this will lead to a parting of the ways between Coyne and Postmedia. I don't agree with Coyne on everything (his attack on the Supreme Court over the Senate Reference opinion was written as if he had never read the BNA Act and Constitution Act), but he's still probably the commentator the closest to my views; an advocate of Classical Liberalism.

Edited October 17, 2015 by ToadBrother

[Smallc]

We have PCs (and Liberals) in Manitoba and he voted NDP.

Because the NDP were the best option at the time. That's unlikely the case this time.

[kimmy]

Only if you insist in taking it literally. I interpret it to mean that they endorse none of a the parties available to voters but have most confidence in CPC economic policies. The latter may be a case of the 'devil you know'. The odd endorsement may also reflect a disconnect between the editorial board and the publisher.

If you take a look at the Facebook Q&A by G&M Editor In Chief David Walmsley, it is clear that he is very literally endorsing a CPC win and Harper resignation:

Has the Globe ever called for the resignation of a Prime Minster before? (At least this seems to be what you're suggesting - that Canadians re-elect Stephen Harper as Prime Minister and then ask him to resign.)

It is extremely rare and I thank you for noticing. The R word is a very significant moment and not something we employ lightly.

How do you think an endorsement of the Conservative Party and a win in the election will lead to a transformation of the party and reclaiming the progressive roots of the old PC party?

A win and a Harper resignation gives the party a chance to widen its aperture and recognise where the divisiveness of negativity has taken the party

Hi David. The course the Globe is endorsing -- a widening tent, a new leader, a broader vision -- tends to be taken when a party is in the wilderness, *after* being voted out of office. Why do you believe a ruling party would have the ability to tackle such difficult ground while in the midst of governing? Cheers

I think they have to Tenille. The divisiveness and lack of ideas means someone has to blink and offer an olive branch to get reason back into public debate. The government, from a position of strength, should be the first to blink

Etc.

-k

[msj]

The G&M traditionally supports the fiscally conservative/socially progressive way.

They would prefer the PC's over the CPC - as would I.

In lieu of the Progressive Conservatives I prefer the Liberals (except to the extent that strategic voting in my riding leads me to vote for the NDP).

The G&M, OTOH, prefers hope.

[eyeball]

If you think the PMO has too much power now - just watch what would happen under Trudeau. There is no leadership. That's what's not safe.

Remember when you were warned about that when Harper was busy doing things like filling up the dictator's shop with tools like C-51? You laughed and rolled your eyes and had a merry time ridiculing the whole notion.

It's not too late to vote strategically for the NDP to prevent a Liberal majority.

[Canada_First]

So Harper is a dictator that can be voted out? Sounds like domocraCy to me.