Today I was listening to CBC radio and they were talking about the election. They had 3 guests on the program who all had varying viewpoints on the election. One of the guests was talking about the saying that has often been heard this election, "change for the sake of change". This has bothered me and I identified with what the guest had to say. He made an analogy of the idea of making a change for the sake of change in Saskatchewan politics to football. He pointed out all the good things that the NDP government has done for Saskatchewan and how the economy and the province is going through a boom right now. He compared changing parties at this point to changing a coach of a football team right when they get to playoffs. He used the example of the Roughriders and how now that they have finally made it to the playoffs, it does not make sense to change their coaching staff now that they are experiencing success. I thought it was very wise of him to use an example that Saskatchewan people can identify with and see just how silly it is to make a change in political parties, just for the sake of change.
Today I was listening to CBC radio and they were talking about the election. They had 3 guests on the program who all had varying viewpoints on the election. One of the guests was talking about the saying that has often been heard this election, "change for the sake of change". This has bothered me and I identified with what the guest had to say. He made an analogy of the idea of making a change for the sake of change in Saskatchewan politics to football. He pointed out all the good things that the NDP government has done for Saskatchewan and how the economy and the province is going through a boom right now. He compared changing parties at this point to changing a coach of a football team right when they get to playoffs. He used the example of the Roughriders and how now that they have finally made it to the playoffs, it does not make sense to change their coaching staff now that they are experiencing success. I thought it was very wise of him to use an example that Saskatchewan people can identify with and see just how silly it is to make a change in political parties, just for the sake of change.
2 comments:
A short and sweet comment:
A monkey with a cabinet of ministers could run the province into a boom when oil is above $90 a barrel. Don't make the mistake and think Calverte had much to do with it. Romanow did great things for this province, the best thing Calverte can do is gracefully step aside and allow Brad Wall and the people of Saskatchewan to grow the province. It's time for POSTIVE change, it't time to keep the promise of Saskatchewan, it's time for Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan Party! And according to the election over 50% of the people agree!
TSS (The Smart Saskatchewanian)
I'm not a Sask Party supporter, but I don't think it's a horrible thing that they won the election. While it's never really a bad idea to get new voices and new opinions in place somewhere, I think it's ridiculous for any political party to run on the simple notion that it is 'time for a change'. Hypothetically, under the Sask Party's logic, if they now stay in power for 16 years, they should be booted out after that time, because, again, it would be 'time for a change'. As far as I can see, the NDP didn't do anything worse in the past 4 years than they did in the previous 12, so why is it 'time for a change' now? Is 16 years simply the number of years a party can be in power before change must occur? If this is the case, then maybe we should run a system like the US presidential system, with ours stating that the max term for a party is 16 years, then there must be change. However, until something like this happens (and I know it won't), I can't agree with any party running under the motto 'It's time for a change'.
Post a Comment