《环球邮报》太大牛啦！

[ccc]

看看过去30年，《环球邮报》多少次“站队”站对了。

过去30年九次大选，《环球邮报》只有一次看走眼。这次大选，《环球邮报》仍看好CPC，但是不看好哈珀。

FEDERAL ELECTION 2015
Federal election: Globe editorial endorsements from 1984 to now
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Oct. 16, 2015 6:00AM EDT；Last updated Friday, Oct. 16, 2015 12:49PM EDT

The Globe and Mail’s editorial board has made its endorsement ahead of the federal election on Oct. 19.

Here is a look at which parties won The Globe and Mail editorial board’s support during federal elections over the past 30 years.

Stephen Harper in 2015. The Canadian Press
2015: The Globe endorses the Conservatives (not Stephen Harper)
From the editorial:

"Canada needs a change. It also needs the maintenance of many aspects of the economic status quo. What Canada needs, then, is a Conservative government that is no longer the Harper government.

It is not time for the Conservatives to go. But it is time for Mr. Harper to take his leave. He can look back on parts of his record with pride, but he has undone himself and his party with a narrowness of vision and a meanness of spirit on a host of issues, from voting rights to crime and punishment to respect for science to respect for the courts. The topper has been how this election campaign was sidetracked into an artificial, American-style, culture war over niqabs and “barbaric cultural practices.” The spectacle of a prime minister seemingly willing to say anything, or demonize anyone, in an attempt to get re-elected has demeaned our politics. And while it may have firmed up the old Reform base, it also solidified the Harper Conservative Party as a party of, by and for that base.

The Conservatives have been a big tent party in the past, and they must be once again. Fiscally prudent, economically liberal and socially progressive – the party could be all of those things, and it once was. But it won’t be, as long as Mr. Harper is at its head. His party deserves to be re-elected. But after Oct. 19, he should quickly resign. The Conservative Party, in government or out, has to reclaim itself from Stephen Harper."

Stephen Harper in 2011. Adrian Wyld/Reuters
2011: The Globe endorses Stephen Harper’s Conservatives
From the editorial:

“Only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness (let’s call it what it is) and the discipline this country needs. He has built the Conservatives into arguably the only truly national party, and during his five years in office has demonstrated strength of character, resolve and a desire to reform. Canadians take Mr. Harper’s successful stewardship of the economy for granted, which is high praise. He has not been the scary character portrayed by the opposition; with some exceptions, his government has been moderate and pragmatic.”

“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.”

Stephen Harper in 2008. Fred Greenslade/Reuters
2008: The Globe endorses Stephen Harper’s Conservatives
From the editorial:

“On balance, Mr. Harper remains the best man for the job in the tough times now upon us. He deserves if not four more years, at least two more years.

“Meanwhile, the supposedly obstinate Mr. Harper has been nothing if not open to adjusting as circumstances change. He was masterful in building a “big tent” centre-right alternative to the “natural governing” Liberals. His vision, determination and adroitness restored political competition to Canada, not an insignificant accomplishment.”

“By and large, Canadians still don’t really trust Mr. Harper and so he has not yet earned their comfort with a majority government. If he prevails next Tuesday, it will be as a default choice, not a popular choice. Voters generally respect him – and, right now, competence trumps the unknown – but if he ever hopes to complete the construction of a governing party of the right and be remembered as more than a middling, minority prime minister, Mr. Harper will have to show as much capacity to grow over the next four years as he has over the past four.”

Stephen Harper and his wife Laureen in 2006. Fred Lum/The Globe and Mail
2006: The Globe endorses Stephen Harper’s Conservatives
From the editorial:

“Today, Canadians clearly are ready for change. If not now – if not after a painfully incoherent minority Liberal government, if not after a succession of scandals, if not after four full terms of deteriorating government – then when? When is change acceptable if not now?”

“There is greater reason to feel comfortable with Mr. Harper today. He has shown himself to be an intelligent man and one, in this campaign at least, who has learned to master his emotions. He has gained control of a party inclined to fly off in all directions, moved it to the centre and proposed a reasonable if imperfect governing platform. His targeted tax measures are measured, his defence policies are sound, and his approach to waiting times is worth experimenting with.”

“The question many ask – who is the real Stephen Harper? – cannot be answered with exactitude. Then again, who was the real Pierre Trudeau – the civil libertarian or the invoker of the War Measures Act? All politics contains a degree of posturing and calculation. That said, the evidence suggests Mr. Harper has indeed evolved as a national leader.”

Paul Martin in 2004. Shaun Best/Reuters
2004: The Globe endorses Paul Martin’s Liberals
From the editorial:

“The answer to the question of who can best govern Canada requires a close examination not just of the devil you know but of the alternative.”

“On the one hand, the Liberals are worn and tired and their leader has not lived up to his billing. But he’s performed well in previous incarnations.

On the other hand, Stephen Harper, a product of Central Canadian caution and Alberta’s can-do frontier mentality, represents genuine change. Yet there are troubling signs that he has not yet matured into a truly national leader.”

“As with medicine, the most important principle of Canadian politics should be to do no harm.”

“Therefore, we urge a Liberal vote Monday – not because they’ve earned the right to re-election but because, at the very least, we can count on them to do little harm ...”

Jean Chretien and his wife Aline in 2000. Paul Chiasson/The Canadian Press
2000: The Globe endorses Jean Chrétien’s Liberals
From the editorial:

“Canadians have enjoyed an uncommon run of prosperity. The federal Liberal government, by which we mean Finance Minister Paul Martin, has taken advantage of the good times and exercised the necessary fiscal restraint to erase a crippling federal deficit and begin paying down an enormous debt.”

“If only Mr. Martin were running for prime minister rather than Mr. Chrétien, our choice would be obvious. Mr. Martin is a fully bilingual, thoughtful, experienced politician with a business background and leadership instincts at the conservative end of the Liberal spectrum.

But Mr. Martin is not running for prime minister. Mr. Chrétien has made sure of that, several times. The question, therefore, is whether he might become prime minister.”

“We therefore cast our vote for the Liberals, in the belief that the party will soon choose Mr. Martin as its leader, and Canada’s.”

Jean Charest in 1997. Tom Hanson/The Canadian Press
1997: The Globe endorses Jean Charest’s Progressive Conservatives
From the editorial:

“It is almost surprising to realize that, on balance, the best party platform comes from the Progressive Conservatives under Jean Charest. The PCs were not supposed to be ready with a coherent vision for the future yet, but Mr. Charest delivered it this spring with convincing force.”

“As a political leader, Jean Charest is clearly superior to Jean Chrétien. Mr. Charest’s ability to make the case for his cause is unsurpassed in Canadian politics, and his approach to Quebec has long shown the suppleness required by reality. The fact that Mr. Charest’s teammates are largely unknown and untested is a liability, but less so than Mr. Chrétien’s presumptuous absence of policy or vision.

Elections require that choices be made among imperfect alternatives in the face of unpredictable events. The Liberals made a bet in calling this election: That they wouldn’t have to earn a second mandate with specific commitments for the future because their opponents were too weak to matter. Both Reform and the PCs have shown the Liberals to be wrong, and Jean Charest has, in our opinion, prevailed in making the best case for the support of the voters.”

Jean Chrétien in 1993. Tom Hanson/The Canadian Press
1993: The Globe endorses a minority government for Jean Chrétien’s Liberals
From the editorial:

“Let us declare firmly for a minority. We do not trust the Liberals to govern unguarded.”

“In short, a minority would put all three parties on probation, probably for about two years. We should then have the chance to watch and learn from their behaviour in Parliament – whether the Grits have changed, whether the Tories can regroup, whether Reform matures – before committing ourselves to a majority for any one party.

What does all this mean for Canadians deciding where to cast their ballot? The Liberals are rightly assured of a plurality. The task now is to deny them a majority. So we urge voters who share our concerns at the Liberals being given a “blank cheque” to vote tactically, Tory or Reform, depending on which party’s candidate is best placed to defeat a Liberal. With the collapse of the Tories, that party looks in most cases to be Reform. The need to avoid splitting the vote is most acute in Ontario and the West, where the Grit majority will be won or lost. Mr. Manning wants his party to be the “fiscal and democratic conscience” of the next Parliament. He has earned that right.”

Brian Mulroney, right, in 1988. Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press
1988: The Globe endorses Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives
From the editorials:

“To a degree perhaps unprecedented in Canadian history, this election has been dominated by a single issue – the free-trade agreement negotiated with the United States. Moreover, the political lines on the issue have been drawn with exceptional clarity: the Conservatives are strongly pro, the Liberals and NDP dead set against. The result, for those of us who favour the agreement, is an easy and obvious choice about which party to support in Monday’s vote. It must be the Conservatives.”

“This election demands passage to a higher state of maturity in Canada, internally as well as globally. Unity can no longer be based on the assumption that whole regions can stand alienated for generations “in the national interest.” The constructive citizenship of most Canadians must be assumed to be deepened. The image of Ottawa as policeman and Defender of the Faith must give way to Ottawa as leader and partner in a shared national purpose, as it has since 1984.

This is a nation-building election. We need a Conservative majority to protect and strengthen the new foundations of unity laid by the Mulroney government. Complacency with our progress could too easily become the enemy of our success.”

Brian Mulroney and his wife Mila in 1984. The Canadian Press
1984: The Globe endorses Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives
From the editorial:

“Which party is most likely to change – really change – the way our national government operates? Which party has the best claim to be a truly national party appealing to the diverse regions and groups which comprise the Canadian family? The answer to both questions is: the Conservative Party. And that, not Brian Mulroney’s smooth campaign or John Turner’s sometimes scratchy one, is why Canadians should vote to install a Conservative Government in Ottawa.”

“It is, as Mr. Mulroney says, a time for civility, for healing, in this diverse and quarrelsome land. The best chance for that is to elect a Conservative Government and let it get on with the nation’s business.”

 

[uglyducking]

2004，2006，2008，2011

 

[cfcplayer]

这是保守党内讧, 要逼哈波下台的节奏啊.
不过从30多名现任保守党MP拒绝在本此选举中为哈波披战袍上阵来看, 他在党内也是不得人心到了极点, 输了并不奇怪.
那30多人估计现在等着看哈波辞职了.

 

[ccc]

这是保守党内讧, 要逼哈波下台的节奏啊.
不过从30多名现任保守党MP拒绝在本此选举中为哈波披战袍上阵来看, 他在党内也是不得人心到了极点, 输了并不奇怪.
那30多人估计现在等着看哈波辞职了.

明明知道选不上，谁去花那个钱费那个力气啊。等下次大选就都出来了。

 

[dongfeng21]

哈珀先生如果下台，是不是要庆祝一下？他的十年是加拿大走向深渊的十年。

 

[冷笑六声]

蛤婆最擅长的是妖魔化对手。

 

[ccc]

Globe editorial

The Tories deserve another mandate – Stephen Harper doesn’t
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Oct. 16, 2015 12:43PM EDT
Last updated Friday, Oct. 16, 2015 4:38PM EDT

All elections are choices among imperfect alternatives, and this one more than most. Each of the parties has gaps, deficiencies and failings. But choose, voters must.

The election of 2015 has been powered by a well-founded desire for change. But it has also been an election where the opposition has recognized the electorate’s desire for stability and continuity on all things economic. That’s why the Liberals and the New Democrats, while running on the rhetoric of change, put forward economic platforms built largely on acceptance of the Conservative status quo.

The key issue of the election should have been the economy and the financial health of Canadians. On that score, the Conservative Party has a solid record. Hardly perfect but, relatively speaking, better than most. However, the election turned into a contest over something else: a referendum on the government’s meanness, its secretiveness, its centralization of power in the most centralized Prime Minister’s Office in history, its endless quest for ever more obscure wedge issues, and its proclivity for starting culture wars rather than sticking to the knitting of sound economic and fiscal stewardship. It turned this election into a referendum on the one-man show that has become the Harper government.

In an election about the economy, the Conservatives might have won, and would have deserved to. But thanks to the Harper government’s own choices, this election has mostly not been fought on the Conservative Party’s strong suit. Attention has instead been turned to the rotten culture of Mr. Harper’s government.

The thing is, the other two major parties have so much respect for the Conservatives’ record on economic, fiscal and tax policy that they propose to change almost none of it. Did Tom Mulcair’s NDP run on a promise to raise income taxes? To massively increase spending? To run deficits? No, no and no. The NDP tax platform was, essentially, the Conservative Party’s, plus a small increase in business taxes. The slogan may have been about “Change,” but the platform was about trying to reassure voters that an Orange Wave would leave the Conservative economic status quo largely in place.

The Liberals have in one respect been slightly different from the NDP in offering change – their call for the federal government to spend more on infrastructure, financed by two years of small deficits, deviates from the Harper government brand (though not its record) of balanced budgets.

But leaving aside a few billion dollars’ worth of extra borrowing, key planks in the Liberal economic platform were cribbed from the Conservative textbook. They promise to one-up the Conservatives, with a cut to the middle-class tax bracket, and one-up them again with an increase in benefits to families with children. To pay for this, they would raise taxes on the highest income earners, and similarly target family benefits to everyone but the rich.

But pushing marginal income tax rates on high-earners above 50 per cent in some provinces is likely to be counterproductive – promoting brain drain in a country that needs to attract the world’s most talented people.

Over the course of this long campaign, Mr. Trudeau did well to market himself to the country. But beyond the selfies and the smiles, the substance has proved difficult to find. Mr. Trudeau’s has been a skeletal vision and is therefore unpersuasive. With Ontario Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne at his side, he would undoubtedly return to a bigger government footprint, and the spectre of waste and debt rears its ugly head. Who would apply the brakes if he is handed a majority? If he achieves minority government, Mr. Trudeau will need the NDP on critical economic issues to prevent his government’s collapse. That, together with his inexperience as a leader, is a recipe for frailty.

This election should have been about jobs, taxes and the economy. This has been the Conservative Party’s strong suit. But the Harper government pursued a multi-year plan of distracting voters from its accomplishments, focusing attention on its faults, pushing up the number of Canadians upset at it for reasons having nothing to do with their pocketbooks, and whittling down its supporters to an ever narrower base. Watching the self-immolating Harper government in action is to watch a tired group trying to shrink itself back to the old Reform Party. To the distress of the country and thinking Conservatives, it is succeeding.

Canada needs a change. It also needs the maintenance of many aspects of the economic status quo. What Canada needs, then, is a Conservative government that is no longer the Harper government.

It is not time for the Conservatives to go. But it is time for Mr. Harper to take his leave. He can look back on parts of his record with pride, but he has undone himself and his party with a narrowness of vision and a meanness of spirit on a host of issues, from voting rights to crime and punishment to respect for science to respect for the courts. The topper has been how this election campaign was sidetracked into an artificial, American-style, culture war over niqabs and “barbaric cultural practices.” The spectacle of a prime minister seemingly willing to say anything, or demonize anyone, in an attempt to get re-elected has demeaned our politics. And while it may have firmed up the old Reform base, it also solidified the Harper Conservative Party as a party of, by and for that base.

The Conservatives have been a big tent party in the past, and they must be once again. Fiscally prudent, economically liberal and socially progressive – the party could be all of those things, and it once was. But it won’t be, as long as Mr. Harper is at its head. His party deserves to be re-elected. But after Oct. 19, he should quickly resign. The Conservative Party, in government or out, has to reclaim itself from Stephen Harper.

 

[ccc]

哈珀先生如果下台，是不是要庆祝一下？他的十年是加拿大走向深渊的十年。

哈珀干得没那么差。

他有点儿像中国的李鹏前总理。

 

[liudong]

转一篇文章， 看看加拿大媒体是不是像哈粉们所说的都是左媒。
http://www.bcbay.com/news/2015/10/17/371132.html


华人网络社区，这几年太多的的人说多伦多英文媒体全是左派的，都偏向NDP 和自由党。这是事实吗? 其实好多问题还真的不能用yes / no 来回答。左右是相对的，评论一个媒体是左是右要看参照物的你站在什么地方。如果你站在最左边，那所有人都只能是右派了，反之亦然。　　如果按照加拿大传统的价值观，大部分媒体除了 Toronto Star 及他的几个附属小报以外，大部分都是右派。　　为什么这样说呢?首先它们都是由大财团控制的，富人喜欢右派这是常识。其次每次大选末期，他们都会有一个 Editorial Endorsement, 比如环球邮报，在 1930 到 2011 的25 次选举中， Conservative 或 Progressive Conservative 被 endorse 了17 次(包括2006/2008/2011)，自由党仅7次(有一次沉默)。自由党曾经是加拿大的缺省执政党，邮报才支持了它四分之一多一点，应该说他是不折不扣的右派才对。　　但好象没有很多加拿大人抱怨邮报是个有政治偏见的报纸，原因是在美国和加拿大，大部分媒体从业人员都还是有极高职业素质的。他们在做媒体报道时，几乎都能做到客观公正，如果你不看 comments, editorial, opinion 这些栏目，你根本就看不出来他的政治取向。记者在选举期间，也不公布自己的政治取向。这样即使你喜欢或厌恶某个记者，他的投票也影响不到大众。 Toronto Star, 这是一个左派报纸，但安省自由党的最大丑闻Ornge就是它首先调查发现并曝光的。Toronto Sun 是一个右派报纸。　　除了Sun 和 Star这两个报纸之外， Globe Mail, MACLEAN’s，NATIONAL POST， CTV, CityTV, GlobeTV 等的新闻报道都是很客观的。　　上两次联邦年大选(2008/2011)，除了Toronto Star，所有的大媒体都支持了Steven Harper 的保守党。　　加拿大只有一个中立的新闻机构是 CBC，这是政府资助的新闻机构，所以不能有任何党派倾向。目前的CEO Hubert Lacroix 是保守党总理 Harper 任命的，但他对记者的独立报道没有施加任何党派影响。CBC 不Endorse 任何政党。很多人觉得CBC 偏左，是觉得CBC近年来关于保守党的负面报道偏多，但事实是你是执政党，当然要监督你了。当年自由党当政时的负面新闻也很多，特别是 sponsorship scandal, 在大选期间CBC不停地在QUEBEC 直播庭审过程，是导致魁人党崛起、自由党下台的重要原因之一。另外Harper保守党的作为确实跟加拿大传统价值观冲突太大，比如负面攻击、秘密政府等。 NATIONAL POST 被认为比较靠右，也不时批评Harper。昨天还有一个报道翻Ford 的旧账。不是National Post 变左了，而是他们在做客观报道。当然，他们对左派政党的错误更不会放过。　　Reform(后来逐渐演变成了现在的联邦保守党)党的出现以后，加拿大政治发生一些了变化。因为他们站在了政治光谱的极右端，所以在他们看来，所有的媒体，除非只说他们好话，否则都有政治偏见。更有意思的的是，他们认为前任总理、进步保守党党领 Brian Mulroney和 Joe Clark 骨子都是自由党。有没有错呢?我觉得也没有，如果有一条线段来标出他们的左右位置，Mulroney 和Clark 距离Harper 的保守党确实比自由党还远。但大多数人并不认可Harper 的这种立场，上次选举，他在自由党表现在最差的时候都只能得到40%的选票就是证据。　　大部分媒体，无论是左派还是右派, 都遵从公认的从业标准，那就是独立，客观，另外它们几乎不报道自杀事件。在报道有争议问题时让双方都能陈述自己。如果有谁在撒谎，还可能会予以揭穿 - 这可能是某些人敌视媒体的原因之一。　　

我个人认为，最值得华人学习的是这些媒体从业人员的是非观，就是他们大部分时候都很清楚地知道什么是对的，什么是错的。有些华人动不动就攻击别人的 “政治正确”，其实当你连基本的对错都搞混淆时，说别人是政治正确是很无知狂妄的。最明显的就是：种族歧视、地域歧视、攻击同性恋，撒谎，以貌取人，说脏话，没有证据就对不知道的人或事情下结论推断等等。如果你想表达的是这些，无论怎么花言巧语，都是错的。这些问题说起来简单，遗憾的是很多人做不到。　　

我写这篇文章的目的，是因为我看到一些跟我争论的保守党支持者，引用的所谓事实，大都是来自保守党或保守党支持者团体。比如前天(10.13)，各大媒体都报道了保守党针对华人社区和印度Punjabi社区做的广告，说自由党要在全国开设妓院和大麻屋。这些赤裸裸的抹黑如果在主流社区推出，效果会适得其反。但华人社区的一些保守党支持者却都把这些政党攻击当成了事实来到处引用传播，如果你是一个独立的选民，因为这些东西而决定你的投票，其实你是被骗了。　　

我在写文章的时候写有关保守党的东西时，事实来源都是各大主流媒体，从不引用自由党或NDP的文宣(我跟他们也没有任何联系);也希望保守党支持者在引用对手的罪状时，能够保证它们确实是来自加拿大正规媒体而不是党派文宣。　　我认为最好的信息来源是CBC，环球邮报和CTV也都不错。独立选民想了解政治，每天花30-60分钟时间在这些网站上follow一下时事(或看 CBC / CTV)，过不了一个月你大概就知道三个党的政策理念和作为了。微信上传播的东西大部分是编的，一定要辨别真假。如果因被党派攻击煽动就变得义正词严、义愤填膺、嫉恶如仇，冲锋陷阵，不小心就成了低俗政治的牺牲品。　　如果有人认为连媒体监督都是不应该的，那独裁国家北朝鲜最适合他，那里谁敢批评政府都被枪毙。另外在讨论时散布种族歧视、地域歧视、憎恨同性恋或其他群体等等，与加拿大价值观不符，甚至是犯罪。有人可能觉得华人要立志改变加拿大的一些“开放”价值观，事实是他们也是从我们的这种思想进化到现在的，不太可能让他们倒退回来。　　

我们的各大政党领袖，都是为了让加拿大变得更好才投身政治的，做他们的工作极端辛苦，还要牺牲很多个人生活。对他们的政策和纪录谁都可以评价，或用投票来表达你的观点。但他们都应该得到我们的的尊重。没有证据就质疑他们的人品和动机是猥琐的行为。　　我相信绝大多数保守党支持者也都是为了一个更好的加拿大而投身政治讨论的。一个better Canada 不该有仇恨、种族歧视、地域歧视、人身攻击等。只有这样才会有理性的讨论，否则国家就会陷入暴民政治。 - See more at: http://www.bcbay.com/news/2015/10/17/371132.html#sthash.NsSqQyUe.dpuf

 

[dongfeng21]

现在自由党已经胜选，有些话说起来显得多余，就算多余的话吧。
如果有人说加拿大的政治家，“都是为了让加拿大变得更好才投身政治的”，这种人基本上或者是不懂政治的、否则就是别有用心的人。政治的目的就是为利益集团的利益最大化服务的。想想有多少美国总统被谋杀，连真相都没有，你还相信政治是那么天真的吗？
哈珀先生在打击异己、攻击政敌方面是很值得其他政党学习的。他的问题是：他为之服务的资本集团，需要他的国家更加开放而不是更加保守，需要把鸡蛋放在不同的篮子里面，而不是美国的篮子里面。这就是他被抛弃的原因。

 

[New Person]

左右是相对的，评论一个媒体是左是右要看参照物的你站在什么地方。如果你站在最左边，那所有人都只能是右派了，反之亦然。

很有意思.

 

[ccc]

现在自由党已经胜选，有些话说起来显得多余，就算多余的话吧。
如果有人说加拿大的政治家，“都是为了让加拿大变得更好才投身政治的”，这种人基本上或者是不懂政治的、否则就是别有用心的人。政治的目的就是为利益集团的利益最大化服务的。想想有多少美国总统被谋杀，连真相都没有，你还相信政治是那么天真的吗？
哈珀先生在打击异己、攻击政敌方面是很值得其他政党学习的。他的问题是：他为之服务的资本集团，需要他的国家更加开放而不是更加保守，需要把鸡蛋放在不同的篮子里面，而不是美国的篮子里面。这就是他被抛弃的原因。

你这个高大上。

我说就是找个自己喜欢的高薪白领工作，同时满足私欲。

 

[lfe634]

這次 Globe and Mail 預言不準啦

如果有人说加拿大的政治家，“都是为了让加拿大变得更好才投身政治的”，这种人基本上或者是不懂政治的、否则就是别有用心的人。政治的目的就是为利益集团的利益最大化服务的。

不必這麼悲觀吧？比如我最喜歡的綠黨，都知道選不上，但總是出來選，還分走 NDP、LIB 的票，也沒什麼利益可言，就是想加拿大變得更好。
而且有句話叫 "屁股決定腦袋"，大多數人的價值觀會與他們當下的利益重合，所以一般投身某個黨，就既是對他們有利，也是他們認為會讓加拿大變得更好。當然在火星人看來這裡面有很多自欺的成份。
當然，因為某黨勝率更大、更容易出頭而投身某黨，是比較糟糕的政客。從骯髒到清白，可能也是個常態分布。
我忽然想起美國這一位：
R. Budd Dwyer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Budd_Dwyer
以死明志，飲彈自殺的鏡頭在 Youtube 上找得到。