The preliminary round


In apparently the first of two endorsements, the Globe picks the Liberals over the NDP.

There is, in other words, sufficient distance between the NDP and the Liberals for preferring the latter to the former. They may be chasing some of the same votes, but they are not interchangeable – the Liberals remain a welcome antidote to ideological politics.


The preliminary round

  1. You could knock me out with a feather. The Globe chose the Liberals over the NDP? Unheard of.

    • (Redacted due to only having half-read the article in question and therefore not really knowing what I was talking about.)

      • Guess they aren't such left-wing loving after all. I fully endorse this meme…

  2. Wow, the Globe fails to endorse the NDP.

  3. Hmm – wonder what the second portion of the endorsement is? Will they go the "Harper may lead a Party we don't endorse, but we endorse his leadership of the country" route? Or will they endorse an Ignatieff-Layton led coalition?


    One things for certain, they endorsed the Conservatives in the last two elections…so that's changed.

    • Or they might propose a Conservative-Liberal minority alignment.

      Certainly not a coalition. But the Liberals could continue to prop up a Conservative minority.

      I read a comment elsewhere (maybe here at Macleans) suggesting that if the Tories are just a couple of seats from a majority, some Liberal MPs might cross to the Tories.

      If you want to prevent a Harper majority, that’s one more reason to vote NDP in any riding where it’s a close NDP-Liberal contest. Ignatieff can say all he wants, but he cannot prevent right-of-centre Liberals from crossing the floor. Remember that guy from BC, whatsisname…

      • In other instances that might happen, but it gets less likely under Stephen Harper.

        • Why?

      • That would be a lot more likely were Harper not the guy in power. No matter how close, you're not going to see people eager to start working with him under his party.

  4. Funny thing is, the Globe accuses the NDP of being “stuck in the past”, and the editors don’t seem to notice the irony, as they’ve been saying that about the NDP for years, and years… it’s one of the biggest cliches in Canadian political discourse. It’s as cliche as saying the Liberals are “above ideology” and the Conservatives are “fiscally responsible”. These are all excuses for not paying attention.

    It would be more honest for the Globe editors to just say this: “The NDP’s agenda threatens our elite economic privileges, therefore we don’t support them.”

    People tend to use cliches like “stuck in the past” when they don’t want to admit to their real values and interests. And that is a very old pattern indeed.

    • I agree. The thing about the NDP under Layton is that they most certainly are not "stuck in the past". Say what you will about his leadership, but under Layton the NDP have aggressively moved away from being the party of unions to the party of middle class families.

      In a few more election cycles the notion of NDP = Big Unions will be a distant memory.

      • either way, he will be the party of tax lots, spend more.

  5. Yup. They will say something like this:

    "Sure he has failed to be accountable, his actions have been highly undemocratic, we are running a massive deficit and he claims he is going to cut 11 billion even though he won't tell us from where, but we have faith with a majority he will change".

      • Just reading the first one from 1953:

        "Mr. George Drew and his colleagues went into the campaign with the conviction — which they retained throughout — that it was desirable, possible and necessary to make a number of important changes at Ottawa; in particular, to reduce the burden of taxes and restore the supremacy of Parliament."

        The current iteration of Conservatives only wants to talk about the first part of that.

        • Oh, you missed the perfect quote!

          "To this purely negative attitude, the Liberals added a smug self-righteousness which many Canadians found nauseating. They tried to tell the nation that they, and they alone, were competent to administer its affairs. They were irreplaceable, indispensable, a conglomeration of geniuses such as this world had never before seen. If, they argued, the people of Canada were so foolish and ungrateful as to defeat them, a major depression and a global war were the very least that could be expected."

          I mean, 1953 all over again. Different parties. I find that amusing.

    • You forgot the part where "Stephen Harper has been painted as an unyielding, robotic demogogue who refuses to reach out to people beyond the stereotypical Conservative tent. However, it's obvious through some key endorsements from the likes of Ripender Singh Malik and running a tamil tiger cheerleader, that STephen Harper has won the small but significant terrorist vote."

  6. Oh for sure, but I think as time goes on, the term socialist will have less and less meaning as fewer and fewer countries can be pointed to as socialist. It'll take some time to reap the benefits, but I think Layton is onto something here.

    • socialism is great, until you run out of other people's money . . .

  7. First endorsement: Globe picks Liberals over NDP

    Fearless prediction for second endorsement: Globe will pick Conservatives over Liberals, just as in 2008 and 2006.

    Also, to preempt the inevitable whining, I'm sure it will be a qualified endorsement, rather than an enthusiastic one.

    • You are probably right, the only hedge is that the Globe endorsement in 2008 read to me as if they wanted to endorse the Liberals but disliked Dion too much. This time around perhaps Ignatieff has impressed (the press at least) enough to change things.

      • It read to me like many of the editors wanted to support Dion, but the ultimate decision maker said otherwise. The less than ringing endorsement was a way to put forward all the concerns by those who did not want to endorse Harper forward.

        My guess is we are going to see the same thing this time around. Like I said above, they will acknowledge all the bad stuff and then say "but he has matured into his role" blah blah blah.

        Here is what they said last time:

        "Instead of carping about a dysfunctional Parliament, for which he holds much responsibility, Mr. Harper should throw out his previous playbook and try making the institution work. It would mean displaying the confidence to operate outside his comfort zone of near-absolute control, but it is a mission built for a true conservative. And, no, Senate reform is no substitute for getting the House of Commons operating well."

        Let's see how consistent they can be this time.

      • it doesn't appear that Ignatieff has impressed the media all that much. . .

    • …qualified endorsement….

      As it should be, no?

  8. Eastern Conference vs Western Conference?

  9. For the first time in forever, I will be fascinated to see who the Star endorses. Will they stick with the traditional "vote Liberal to stop the Tories", or recognize that can't happen this time and finally endorse the NDP.

    • Hahahahaha! No you're just talking crazy.

    • You can't pick either one throughout the whole country. What you can do is pick one or the other (or Green) in each individual riding, as Catch 22 has done. http://www.catch22campaign.ca

      • that's right. Don't vote your convictions. Don't vote for the candidate in your riding who thinks most like you. Don't vote for the person you feel would do the best job. That would all be crazy – wasted votes.

        You folks make me chuckle.

  10. I've never understood why newspapers endorse anyone. Aren't the media supposed to be unbiased observers? Are they simply projecting who will win, or are they saying they want you to vote for the party they are endorsing (as I understand it, I would think it is the latter)?

    • They are saying vote for the party our owners want to win.

    • Editorial vs. reporting. The former is fastidious in presenting the 'correct' opinion, the former equally so in presenting the appearance of having none at all. It's an editorial board 'endorsement'.

      It will be hysterical reading the G&M's yoga prose as to why they endorse the Cons this time. Junius is going to be pi-i-ssed.

  11. No, it's a simple way of saying they don't cater to Crazy.

  12. Best of 7 anyone?

  13. The Globe endorses majority/minority outcomes as well as individual parties. I suspect they will endorse a Conservative minority.

    • They probably hope that said minority would result in a Tory-Liberal accord.

      • if the NDP kicks the Liberals to the curb, that might be a possibility.

        Be interesting to see them joing forces with 'the Devil' . . . .

        • I suspect that most of the Liberals who think Harper is so evil that he must be stopped at all costs are likely to strategically vote NDP.

          • I was talking about the MP's

            I would suspect that a lot of those voters would stay home, however.

Sign in to comment.