Wednesday October 2, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday October 2, 2019

Andrew Scheer’s experience in the insurance industry: ‘6 or 7 months’ 

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has talked for years about his private sector experience as an insurance broker, but under questioning Monday, he admitted he only worked in the industry for “six or seven months.”

September 26, 2019

CBC News asked him exactly how long he’d worked in a Regina insurance office.

“I worked from approximately spring to some time in the fall,” he said, saying he’d have to go back and check his personal records for the exact dates.

CBC News also asked Scheer to clarify exactly what his role was in this office.

He said his job was “supporting the whole team … answering questions from customers and clients and doing preparatory work.” He added that he would also explain and pass on information to people coming into the office.

When CBC News suggested this meant he’d never actually worked as a broker, Scheer said that although he (eventually) received his accreditation under the Canadian Accredited Insurance Broker Program, “at this particular office, the licensed brokers finalized all the transactions.”

Conrad Shenher, who owned the insurance firm where Scheer worked and is now retired, told CBC News in a phone call that he doesn’t remember what Scheer’s duties were because it was so long ago.

May 16, 2012

In response to an earlier question from The Canadian Press, Scheer had said “I left before obtaining the full licence but I did receive that accreditation for general insurance.”

He also said he had many different jobs before being elected, including waiting tables.

When Scheer ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party, the biographical information on his website said he “passed the Canadian Accredited Insurance Broker program and began his working career in the insurance industry in Regina.”

That’s the opposite order of events Scheer now describes.

Derek Lothian, chief executive officer of the Insurance Brokers Association of Saskatchewan, confirmed that Scheer completed a course with the association “that would form part of the eligibility requirements for licensing.”

As of Monday afternoon, Scheer’s biography on the Conservative Party’s web page continued to say that “before entering public life, Andrew worked in the private sector as an insurance broker.” (CBC) 

 

Tuesday October 1, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday October 1, 2019

Promising back-to-back deficits isn’t political suicide in Canada anymore

St. Paul, 1997

The church of the balanced budget — inaugurated by Saint Paul in 1995 — has been losing power for some time now, even if it retains significant allure.

But with balance no longer universally accepted as the be-all and end-all, a more interesting choice has emerged for voters.

The first blow against balance came in January 2009 when Stephen Harper, who had once vowed never to spend into a deficit, was compelled to acknowledge that running a deficit wasn’t necessarily a bad thing — that sometimes it’s even the right thing to do.

January 26, 2009

In that case, it was the Great Recession that necessitated a quick influx of government spending. For the fiscal year of 2009-2010, the Harper government ran a deficit of $56.4 billion. Before they were done, the Conservatives ran six years of annual deficits, totalling $157.8 billion.

Still, it was considered heresy when Justin Trudeau announced in 2015 that a Liberal government would run three years of deficits to boost a sluggish economy. One newspaper described the plan as “political suicide.” Shortly thereafter, Trudeau’s Liberals won a majority.

November 2, 2016

Once in office, the Trudeau government pushed things further — first because of economic circumstances, then because of its own choices and priorities — resulting in deficits of $19 billion, $19 billion, $14 billion and $19.8 billion.

Harper’s deficits could be traced to his decisions to cut taxes — the GST in particular. Trudeau’s deficits had more to do with new spending on federal programs.

While running for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2017, Andrew Scheer vowed to balance the budget within two years of forming government. But as the 2019 general election neared — and with budget cuts by Doug Ford’s provincial government angering voters in Ontario — Scheer lost some of his enthusiasm for swift deficit elimination. In May, he announced that a Conservative government would instead take five years to balance the budget.

April 13, 2019

The Liberal platform released on Sunday nudges the goalposts again. With promised new spending, a re-elected Liberal government would run larger deficits, starting at $27.4 billion in the first year and declining to $21 billion in the fourth.

The Conservative response was notable for what it lacked. Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre’s primary argument was not that the deficits were themselves immoral or fundamentally unsound. Rather, he claimed the deficits inevitably would lead a Liberal government to increase taxes — tax hikes the Conservatives claim Trudeau is concealing now.

That attack might resonate more if the Harper government’s deficits had triggered the same consequences.

Economists like Kevin Milligan argue that the current deficit is not a matter for great concern — that government debt is not like household debt, borrowing rates are low, the situation in 2019 is not what it was in 1995 and recent deficits have been relatively modest.

November 22, 2018

The debt-to-GDP ratio — the debt as measured against the entirety of the national economy — was 31.5 per cent in 2014-2015. The Liberals now project that, even after eight years of deficits, it will be 30.2 per cent of GDP in 2023-2024. (For the sake of comparison, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 66.8 per cent in 1996, when Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were compelled to cut spending.)

In 2011, Harper’s Conservatives promised $1.6 billion in new spending, while Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals countered with a platform that included $5.5 billion in new initiatives, all of it covered by corresponding tax increases or spending cuts.

In 2019, instead of arguing within a box created by competing desires to both balance the budget and avoid broad-based tax increases, the platforms of the two main federal parties could be upwards of $20 billion apart.

That is not a small amount of money.

If the orthodoxy of the balanced budget has weakened, it has left room for a clearer choice. (CBC) 

 
 

Why Political Memes Suck; And Yet Another Social Media Jackass Award goes to…

…Envelope please…The People’s Party of Canada! With shout outs to Rob Lussier, and Mark Friesen.

The story was posted last week by the Saskatchewan regional office of the CBC, under the headline “2 PPC candidates tweet cartoon of Jagmeet Singh wearing turban with bomb on it“. Naturally, it evoked memories of the Danish cartoon controversy, and without seeing the cartoon I wondered, who the heck would draw that? 

From left to right is a facial depiction of Jagmeet Singh by Theo Moudakis, altered to show a bomb in his turban, my caricature face of Justin Trudeau, John Fewings caricature of Andrew Scheer, and then another drawn by me of Maxime Bernier. I’ve linked my drawings to their original cartoons.

Turns out to be one of those Photo-chopped amalgams of various unauthorized repurposings to create what has increasing become acceptable in online political discourse: the meme. 

Those who follow this blog know that we in the editorial cartooning world don’t take kindly to the strange behaviour that compels people to make and share their efforts to create these ugly renderings. I have written much over the years against this practice over and over.

While the source of the above is unknown, two candidates running for the PPC, Rob Lussier (Brandon-Souris), and Mark Friesen (Saskatoon-Grasswood) chose to retweet an inflammatory message linking Singh to terrorism, and continue to stand by them as an appropriate line to supporters.  Obviously, the xenophobic tactic of spreading fear about Sikhs or Muslims or anybody that happens to wear a turban being aligned to terrorism is a racist one. The unauthorized use of the work of others is a secondary offence to a more serious one of spreading hate.

Alas, this is the peril of posting work on the Internet. When satire is turned around for partisan gain, or worse, used to spread hate. Be they chopped up editorial cartoons or photographs, memes are unsigned, repurposed imagery cluttering the online world. Yet, they’ve become a subject of study as they become permanently part of the election cycle (practically perpetual outside of the usual 6 week campaign period.) So when my local paper posts an article under the headline Why political memes matter to this federal election reporting scientific exploration, it gives credence to the concept of memes.

Over the past few years write-ups have suggested that memes have become the political cartoon of the era and that the work editorial cartoons draw face an ‘existential threat’ from advertisers and memes.  

The Condescending Willy Wonka Meme

Amongst the chatter within the tiny group of people who still draw editorial cartoons for a living there is universal disdain for these perspectives. While memes are generally frowned upon there are, admittedly, some pretty hilarious memes, non-political memes that is, which are quite effective in getting a point across, quick and dirty, with a wide audience. Which is, ironically, the basic goal of an editorial cartoonist in drawing a cartoon.

The difference, however, when it comes to political memes, is that they’re used for ideological or partisan purposes, as opposed to satire. The top rendering is a case in point, and indeed all of the other repurposed photo-cropping of editorial cartoons I’ve awarded Jackass awards to are partisan regurgitations. Meme creators are anonymous, the images they use are ripoffs, and only a fraction of time is spent whipping up memes as opposed to editorial cartoons.

Editorial Cartoonists are mistakenly regarded by some as being partisans. We’re supposed to skewer the people with power, to punch up, no matter what political party happens to be in charge of the levers of government. At the same time, we shouldn’t necessarily work as agent provocateurs for the opposition. I think editorial cartoonists are expected to satirize and draw out folly along all sides of the legislature.  To shoot editorial cartoon barbs from a constant point of the political spectrum and align oneself to a particular party, is in effect being partisan, creating propaganda, as opposed to satire. One need only look through a editorial cartoonist’s body of work to differentiate a satirist from a propagandist. Take this so & so as a prime example. Those of the latter group might as well call themselves political meme creators.

Political memes will never take over editorial cartoons, because propaganda will never replace satire. Can we just stop making the comparisons?

Saturday September 28, 2019

September 28, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday September 28, 2019

Greta Thunberg meets Trudeau, tells him he’s not doing enough to fight climate change

September 24, 2019

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg told Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau today he’s not doing enough to protect the environment from the threat of runaway climate change.

Trudeau met the teenage activist ahead of Friday’s mass climate rally in Montreal in his capacity as prime minister. The pair spoke in private for about 15 minutes, shortly before Trudeau joined the rally marching through the city’s downtown.

After the meeting, Thunberg was asked if she had a message for Trudeau. She said that Trudeau is not doing enough — but added that she says the same thing to every political leader she meets.

“My message to all the politicians around the world is the same: just listen and act on the current, best available united science,” she said.

“I try not to focus on the individuals and rather focus on the whole picture because … of course it’s easier to just blame someone and of course he has a lot of responsibility … and he, of course, is not doing enough.

September 20, 2016

“But we need to, because this is such a huge problem. This is a system that is wrong. So my message to all the politicians is the same — to just listen to the science and act on the science.”

In a news conference announcing a proposal to plant trees to combat climate change, Trudeau called Thunberg a “remarkable” young person who is driving the conversation forward.

“She is the voice of a generation of young people who are calling on their leaders to do more and to do better, and I’m listening,” he said.

Trudeau was asked about a June 19 tweet from Thunberg in which she questioned Canada’s decision to declare a climate emergency one day and say yes to expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline the next.

April 11, 2018

“This is shameful. But of course this is not only in Canada, we can unfortunately see the same pattern everywhere,” she said.

Trudeau defended his government’s actions.

“We have a national climate plan that will reduce our emissions and hit our 2030 targets in a way that also includes getting a better price for our oil resources that allows us to put the profits directly into the fight against climate change,” he said.

Trudeau had a large security detail surrounding him and his family as they joined the crowds on the streets of Montreal for the climate rally. Some in the crowd chanted slogans attacking Trudeau’s embrace of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. (CBC)

 

Justin meets Greta from r/worldpoliticalhumour

 

Friday September 27, 2019

September 27, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday September 27, 2019

Donald Trump’s bizarre New York meeting with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky: ‘I’ve made him more famous’

December 20, 2016

As an impeachment storm rages in Washington, to say that Donald Trump’s tête-à-tête with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was hotly anticipated would be the understatement of the week.

And it delivered: their appearance before the media in New York was tense, bizarre and funny all at the same time.

On the right: Trump, 73, the one-time real estate mogul and reality television star, now the Republican president of the United States.

On the left: Zelensky, 41, a one-time comedian, now president.

A summer telephone conversation between the two men is at the centre of a political firestorm in the US capital, and prompted opposition Democrats to launch an impeachment inquiry against Trump.

In his usual dark blue suit and red tie, Trump – literally sitting on the edge of his seat – was anything but relaxed.

February 26, 2014

Zelensky, sporting a three-piece black suit, seemed far less anxious and settled easily into his armchair.

The tension in the room was palpable, but the conversation started on a lighter note, and even seemed like a surreal comedy act.

“He’s made me more famous and I’ve made him more famous,” the billionaire Trump quipped at the start of the meeting, to laughs from the press corps.

“It’s better to be on TV than by phone,” Zelensky replied with a bit of a knowing grin, speaking in English, a language in which he was fairly comfortable.

Then the tone shifted significantly.

Did the leader of the world’s only superpower put pressure on his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate the family of Joe Biden, one of the Democrats vying to take on Trump in the 2020 election?

Zelensky hesitated and stammered before answering: “I think you read everything. (…) I’m sorry, but I don’t want to be involved in the democratic, open elections of (the) USA.”

Then he was more precise: “We had – I think (a) good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things, and … so I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed me.”

Trump chimed in: “In other words, no pressure”.

And then the Republican leader got angry. (Continued: South China Post)