A recent bulletin from the Conservative war office warns: “We have seen what the NDP can do. In Ontario, we remember what happened when the NDP got hold of the reins of power: tens of thousands of jobs lost, an economy totally mismanaged, and skyrocketing taxes.”
I know. Bob Rae is a Liberal now. It was Ontario, not Canada. It was 1990. North America was experiencing its worst recession since the Great Depression and governments of all stripes, including Brian Mulroney’s federal Conservatives, were struggling with deficits and high interest rates.
Doesn’t matter. Rae’s short-lived experience as premier has long been a truncheon in the Conservative armour — a handy way of shifting focus from today’s reality to ancient history of questionable relevance. Even if an inexperienced Rae did make costly mistakes — and, at the same time, save jobs at Algoma Steel with a bailout not unlike Harper’s rescue package for the auto industry — what does that have to do with Layton, a different politician in a different era?
If the common link is party label, why choose Rae’s government? Why not compare a notional Layton-led coalition to Roy Romanow’s stable and successful regime in Saskatchewan, or Gary Doer’s equally popular NDP government in Manitoba? If New Democrats are genetically irresponsible, as Harper seems to imply, why did he send Doer to Washington as Canada’s ambassador? Why did “socialist” provinces consistently run surpluses and spend frugally?
~ from the astute Susan Riley of the Ottawa Citizen. This is a must-read article for those wondering about the potentials and perils of NDP leadership.
29 April 2011
The G&M endorsement cobbled together some of the more important reasons why the Harper government is regressing many of our democratic mechanisms and processes, and then proceeded to recommend the party?
I’m going to hazard a guess that any federal government, left, centre or right, would’ve handled the economic crisis in more or less the same way the Conservatives (and most other industrialized nations) did. So I really think the G&M is stretching it on Tory economic credibility, and conveniently ignores pre-recession patterns. Harper had the luxury of governing at the peak of a boom, and so the government’s “good times” economic mettle has not yet been tested. The G&M also ignores that no federal party, if elected, is likely to make markedly different changes to our economic policy (in my humble opinion).
Anyhow:
The campaign of 2011 – so vicious and often vapid – should not be remembered fondly. But that will soon be behind us. If the result is a confident new Parliament, it could help propel Canada into a fresh period of innovation, government reform and global ambition. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are best positioned to guide Canada there.
Like the fucking Titanic.
I can (sort of) understand the myriad reasons why the Globe would endorse the Conservatives and Stephen Harper to lead another government, but this is a collection of the weakest arguments for staying the course I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading. A hungover 18-year-old Intro to Poli Sci student could rip this set of logic to shreds.
28 April 2011
Except this time the “hope guy” is *actually* a liberal.
Poster courtesy of Amanda Woodward on flickr.
28 April 2011
Me
Find me:
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
Ask me anything!
Flickr
I Like
-
Pixel wants to join the patio party too (Taken...
-
The Netherlands is going wild over the Europan...
-
...
-
Bertrand Eberhard
-
I Follow
Theme created by 
