Monday, October 19, 2015

History of the Globe and accountability

I joined in the laughter over the Globe and Mail's ludicrous "endorsement" on the weekend -- we should all vote for the Conservative Party but that Stephen Harper should please resign as leader.
It is not time for the Conservatives to go. But it is time for Mr. Harper to take his leave.... His party deserves to be re-elected. But after Oct. 19, he should quickly resign.
Some of the jokes were pretty funny. "The News but not Huey Lewis" "The Globe -- but not the Mail."  

It occurred to me that this suggests the Globe actually has a crude, ill-thought-out yearning for what happens in real parliamentary democracies to prevail in Canada.

All over the world, when a parliamentary party has support but its leader is dangerous/arrogant/incompetent/dragging the party down, the caucus holds a quick meeting, accountability is restored, and the parliamentarians selects a new leader more in keeping with what the party and the electorate wants.  But they don't sit about hoping the guy might take a hint.

It's only Canada that has thoroughly institutionalized this parody of parliamentary process, in which, instead of getting constant leadership accountability, even stalwart supporters like the editorial board of the Globe are reduced to wishin' and hopin' an' thinkin' and prayin' that the boss might eventually consider doing the right thing.  On his own time. If he feels like it.

The Globe but not the Mail, yes. George Brown wouldn't have stood for this kind of thing!

Update, May 21:  Maybe the Globe had rumours of inside murmuring. The Star reports that the Conservative campaign team considered having Harper make a resignation promise. But they understood it would be useless and doubled down on the niqab witchhunt instead.

Follow @CmedMoore