campaign

Wednesday August 23, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday August 23, 2017

Patrick Brown’s disastrous tenure as PC leader

A leadership race based on who sells the most memberships can lead to a disappointing outcome. In May 2015, Patrick Brown won the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership race against a more qualified and experienced opponent, Christine Elliott. She was a three-term MPP, deputy leader of the party, and someone with vision.

June 15, 2017

Brown was a two-term, lacklustre, social conservative MP. In Ottawa, he voted against same-sex marriage and was an anti-abortion advocate. He offered no clear vision for the PC Party during the race, but used his organizing skills to sell hundreds of party memberships.

Two years of on-the-job training and Brown’s greatest talent may yet turn out to be selling memberships. He’s lost a commanding lead over the Liberals and faces serious internal rebellion.

A strong democracy requires a strong opposition — one that challenges the governing party and presents a credible alternative. Brown is struggling to deliver on both counts.

August 31, 2016

In his first year as opposition leader everything seemed possible. He was dealing with a seemingly spent 15-year-old, scandal-plagued government. He and the PCs vaulted ahead in the polls. Premier Wynne was falling out of fashion.

He swelled the party membership from 11,000 to 80,000 and won two by-elections, including his own seat in Simcoe North. He countered the Liberal attempts to brand him a social conservative by claiming to be a “pragmatic conservative.” That meant surprise support for the LGBT community and a “revenue neutral” carbon tax. Beyond that, Brown was bereft of any engaging policy ideas.

By the end of last year the hope was Brown’s young, slick image would give way to a more passionate politician with a plan for the future.

So far this year he’s failed to deliver on that hope. Instead of scoring easy points against the vulnerable Liberals, Brown attacks without having a plan. He rails against soaring hydro rates but hasn’t offered a solution. He complains about “reckless spending” but hesitates to say where he’d make major program cuts. (Continued: Toronto Star) 

 

 

SaveSave

SaveSave

Friday May 19, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday May 19, 2017

What Maxime Bernier’s Canada would look like

The libertarian former cabinet minister is leading the Conservative leadership race, heading into the final stretch.

April 27, 2017

Maxime Bernier has a dramatically different idea about how Canada should work.

Bernier would get the federal government out of health care, transferring the full responsibility to provinces and paving the way for more private delivery.

Bernier would tie Canada’s foreign aid to “morality,” and believes billions of it should be spent instead on tax cut and healing the poor at home.

Bernier would end federal “welfare” for Canadian businesses, and axe popular tax credits for things like kid’s hockey gear and teachers’ classroom supplies in favour of across-the-board tax cuts.

And Bernier wants to do it all in a four-year term, should he become Conservative leader at the end of the month, and should he defeat Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in 2019.

May 28, 2008

In many ways, Bernier’s approach would be a significant break from the Stephen Harper era. Harper took a slow and steady course, favouring incremental change and reassuring moderate Canadians there was no Conservative “hidden agenda.”

Bernier is proposing dramatic change quickly — and his agenda certainly can’t be accused of being hidden.

“They’re conservative ideas, they’re conservative values,” Bernier said this week, discussing his libertarian-leaning platform.

While popular with a good chunk of the Conservative base, there is some concern within the party about how the greater population will receive Bernier’s libertarian policies — and how well he can bring together the Conservative family after a divisive leadership campaign. (Continued: Toronto Star)

 

Friday August 26, 2016

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Friday August 26, 2016 Ontario Liberals wonÕt ban cash-for-access events OntarioÕs Liberal government has bowed to public and opposition pressure to tighten caps further on political donations, but is still not banning cash-for-access fundraising. Government House Leader Yasir Naqvi on Monday released proposed amendments to Bill 201, the LiberalsÕ campaign-finance reform legislation. TheÊbill is under review by a legislative committee, which has been holding public hearings for the past two months. The changes include a $3,600 limit per donor Ð divided among the central party office, riding associations and individual candidates Ð in a year withÊan election or by-election, or $2,400 in a year without either. Currently, donors can contribute up to $33,250 annually; the original text of the billÊwould have brought that down to $7,750 in a year with an election or by-election. But the Liberals opted not to make cash-for-access illegal, allowing the controversial fundraising practice that started the furor over campaign financeÊto continue. Instead of a legislated ban, Mr. NaqviÕs office said he will consult the opposition parties on a code of conduct for MPPs that would offerÊguidelines for raising money from stakeholders. The government turned down an interview request for Mr. Naqvi. His spokesman, Kyle Richardson, refused to answer questions directly on why theÊLiberals are not prohibiting cash-for-access. ÒGovernment amendments are based on the feedback heard at public hearings held across Ontario. We are committed to working with theÊopposition,Ó Mr. Richardson wrote in an e-mail. Under the cash-for-access system, revealed by The Globe and Mail this spring, corporations, unions and wealthy individuals paid up to $10,000 forÊaccess to Premier Kathleen Wynne and members of her cabinet, typically over cocktails and dinner. At most events, corporate and union leaders in aÊgiven sector Ð including const

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday August 26, 2016

Ontario Liberals won’t ban cash-for-access events

Ontario’s Liberal government has bowed to public and opposition pressure to tighten caps further on political donations, but is still not banning cash-for-access fundraising.

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Wednesday March 30, 2016 Ontario, the Wild West of Political fundraising Kathleen WynneÕs Liberals will rake in roughly $3 million in a single fundraiser Wednesday night. At their sumptuous Heritage Dinner, ÒVictory TablesÓ are priced at $18,000 for corporate high-flyers, and the biggest donors are feted at a private cocktail reception by a grateful premier. But thatÕs only half the story of how the governing party raises big money. In Ontario, the Wild West of fundraising, cabinet ministers are assigned secret targets as high as $500,000 a year, the Star has learned. The unsavoury spectacle of OntarioÕs politicians supplicating big business and big labour for events such as the Heritage Dinner is only a small piece of the fundraising puzzle glimpsed by the public. Beyond the showy hobnobbing, shadowy appeals by cabinet ministers for corporate money are the untold story at QueenÕs Park. Corporate and union contributions that Wynne persists in publicly defending create a demonstrable conflict of interest for cabinet ministers, which is why they were banned for federal parties in 2006, and are no longer legal in four other provinces. And yet, according to multiple sources, top cabinet ministers at QueenÕs Park are given financial targets that are typically in the range of $250,000 annually Ñ double that amount in some cases. These quasi-quotas are never written down, conveyed instead by the Ontario Liberal Fund through confidential meetings and phone calls. They are the price of admission to power, revealed here for the first time, and they are astonishingly high. The two most marketable ministers are Charles Sousa, the minister of finance, and Eric Hoskins, who helms the provinceÕs $52-billion health care budget. Both are expected to bring in as much as $500,000 a year, well-placed sources have confirmed. SousaÕs control of the provincial treasury, tax policy and auto insurance makes him a prime t

March 30, 2016

Government House Leader Yasir Naqvi on Monday released proposed amendments to Bill 201, the Liberals’ campaign-finance reform legislation. The bill is under review by a legislative committee, which has been holding public hearings for the past two months.

The changes include a $3,600 limit per donor – divided among the central party office, riding associations and individual candidates – in a year with an election or by-election, or $2,400 in a year without either. Currently, donors can contribute up to $33,250 annually; the original text of the bill would have brought that down to $7,750 in a year with an election or by-election.

But the Liberals opted not to make cash-for-access illegal, allowing the controversial fundraising practice that started the furor over campaign finance to continue. Instead of a legislated ban, Mr. Naqvi’s office said he will consult the opposition parties on a code of conduct for MPPs that would offer guidelines for raising money from stakeholders.

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð

April 7, 2016

The government turned down an interview request for Mr. Naqvi. His spokesman, Kyle Richardson, refused to answer questions directly on why the Liberals are not prohibiting cash-for-access.

“Government amendments are based on the feedback heard at public hearings held across Ontario. We are committed to working with the opposition,” Mr. Richardson wrote in an e-mail.

Under the cash-for-access system, revealed by The Globe and Mail this spring, corporations, unions and wealthy individuals paid up to $10,000 for access to Premier Kathleen Wynne and members of her cabinet, typically over cocktails and dinner. At most events, corporate and union leaders in a given sector – including construction, finance, insurance and pharmaceuticals – gave money to spend time with the cabinet minister responsible for making policy decisions and handing out contracts in the donors’ industry. (Source: Globe & Mail)

 

Saturday June 4, 2016

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Saturday June 4, 2016 Hillary Clinton's evisceration of Donald Trump There's a new Hillary Clinton in town. A speech that was billed as a major foreign policy address instead unfolded as a savage, mocking evisceration of Donald Trump Thursday as the former secretary of state adopted an aggressive new campaign persona designed to repel the unpredictable challenge posed by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. In one of the most striking speeches of her political career, Clinton dispensed with the sober diplo-speak that has characterized her previous national security addresses and went straight for the jugular, unleashing a series of biting attacks on Trump. In the spirit of President Lyndon Johnson's notorious "Daisy" nuclear blast ad targeting Barry Goldwater's temperament in 1964, Clinton warned that Trump should not be let anywhere near the nuclear codes because he could start a war when somebody "got under his very thin skin." "He's not just unprepared -- he's temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said during the speech in San Diego, California, days before Tuesday's primary in the Golden State effectively concludes the primary season and confirms her as the presumptive Democratic nominee over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Trump fired back while speaking at a rally in San Jose, California, Thursday night. "I watched Hillary today and it was pathetic. It was so sad to watch," Trump said, calling it a "political speech" that had nothing to do with foreign policy. "It was a pretty pathetic deal," he added. The speech marked a significant moment in Clinton's campaign, as it was the first real signal of the tactics and attitude she will use to take on Trump and offered a preview of what are likely to be fierce clashes between the rivals at a trio of presidential debates later in the year. It demonstrated the kind o

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday June 4, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s evisceration of Donald Trump

There’s a new Hillary Clinton in town.

A speech that was billed as a major foreign policy address instead unfolded as a savage, mocking evisceration of Donald Trump Thursday as the former secretary of state adopted an aggressive new campaign persona designed to repel the unpredictable challenge posed by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

In one of the most striking speeches of her political career, Clinton dispensed with the sober diplo-speak that has characterized her previous national security addresses and went straight for the jugular, unleashing a series of biting attacks on Trump.

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Tuesday February 8, 2000 The United States Senate election in New York in 2000 was held on November 7, 2000. First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first First Lady to run for political office, defeated Congressman Rick Lazio. The general election coincided with the 2000 U.S. presidential election. The race began in November 1998 when four-term incumbent New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan announced his retirement. Both the Democratic Party and Republican Party sought high-profile candidates to compete for the open seat. By early 1999 Clinton and Mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani were the likely respective nominees. Clinton and her husband, President Bill Clinton, purchased a house in Chappaqua, New York, in September 1999; she thereby become eligible for the election, although she faced characterizations of carpetbagging since she had never resided in the state before. The lead in statewide polls swung from Clinton to Giuliani and back to Clinton as the campaigns featured both successful strategies and mistakes as well as dealing with current events. In late April and May 2000, Giuliani's medical, romantic, marital, and political lives all collided in a tumultuous four-week period, culminating in his withdrawing from the race on May 19. (Source: Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2000 Hillary Clinton, USA, New York, NYC, carpetbagging, Senate, election, campaigning, statue, liberty

February 8, 2000

In the spirit of President Lyndon Johnson’s notorious “Daisy” nuclear blast ad targeting Barry Goldwater’s temperament in 1964, Clinton warned that Trump should not be let anywhere near the nuclear codes because he could start a war when somebody “got under his very thin skin.”

“He’s not just unprepared — he’s temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility,” Clinton said during the speech in San Diego, California, days before Tuesday’s primary in the Golden State effectively concludes the primary season and confirms her as the presumptive Democratic nominee over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Trump fired back while speaking at a rally in San Jose, California, Thursday night.

“I watched Hillary today and it was pathetic. It was so sad to watch,” Trump said, calling it a “political speech” that had nothing to do with foreign policy.

“It was a pretty pathetic deal,” he added.

The speech marked a significant moment in Clinton’s campaign, as it was the first real signal of the tactics and attitude she will use to take on Trump and offered a preview of what are likely to be fierce clashes between the rivals at a trio of presidential debates later in the year. It demonstrated the kind of sardonic, unrestrained humor that she often shows in private interactions with friends and reporters but has refrained from displaying in public. (Continued: CNN)

 

Saturday October 10, 2015

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator - Saturday October 10, 2015 The niqab is a distraction. Voters should focus on real issues An editorial that appeared in the Globe & Mail 10 days ago is as pertinent today as it was when it was first published on October 1. This test of endurance known as the 2015 election campaign has presented Canadians with plenty of serious issues to consider. The economy, for starters. How does a country that benefited from an oil boom maintain jobs and growth when the price of crude oil plummets for an extended period? There are also big fiscal choices: Does Canada need budgets in surplus, or is it wiser to run small deficits and spend more on infrastructure now, when interest rates are at record lows? How about the environment? Should Ottawa have a national plan to substantially reduce carbon emissions, or should it leave the field largely to the provinces? Or foreign policy: Should Canada be bombing the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, or should we be focusing on training local troops and delivering humanitarian aid? And what is the right number of Syrian refugees to accept? For the first seven weeks of the 11-week campaign, voters and candidates mostly focused on these and other pertinent issues. But with the Oct. 19 vote now just weeks away, this election is at risk of being overtaken by a single emotional issue that has no tangible bearing on the lives and well-being of Canadians. WeÕre talking about the niqab. The Conservative Party and its leader Stephen Harper want the niqab banned at citizenship ceremonies. The Bloc QuŽbŽcois, desperate for votes, demand the same. Both parties falsely accuse Muslim women who wear the face coverings of Òhiding their identities.Ó Mr. HarperÕs focus on this issue has begun to open up a little daylight between his party and the Liberals and New Democrats, and heÕs pushing it harder than ever. Many believe that a veiled female face goes against Canadian values. In a fr

Saturday October 10, 2015

The niqab is a distraction. Voters should focus on real issues

An editorial that appeared in the Globe & Mail 10 days ago is as pertinent today as it was when it was first published on October 1.

This test of endurance known as the 2015 election campaign has presented Canadians with plenty of serious issues to consider. The economy, for starters. How does a country that benefited from an oil boom maintain jobs and growth when the price of crude oil plummets for an extended period?

There are also big fiscal choices: Does Canada need budgets in surplus, or is it wiser to run small deficits and spend more on infrastructure now, when interest rates are at record lows?

How about the environment? Should Ottawa have a national plan to substantially reduce carbon emissions, or should it leave the field largely to the provinces?

Or foreign policy: Should Canada be bombing the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, or should we be focusing on training local troops and delivering humanitarian aid? And what is the right number of Syrian refugees to accept?

For the first seven weeks of the 11-week campaign, voters and candidates mostly focused on these and other pertinent issues. But with the Oct. 19 vote now just weeks away, this election is at risk of being overtaken by a single emotional issue that has no tangible bearing on the lives and well-being of Canadians. We’re talking about the niqab.

The Conservative Party and its leader Stephen Harper want the niqab banned at citizenship ceremonies. The Bloc Québécois, desperate for votes, demand the same. Both parties falsely accuse Muslim women who wear the face coverings of “hiding their identities.” Mr. Harper’s focus on this issue has begun to open up a little daylight between his party and the Liberals and New Democrats, and he’s pushing it harder than ever.

Many believe that a veiled female face goes against Canadian values. In a free society, they are entitled to that belief. But Canada’s religious freedoms mean a woman can wear a niqab in public. This is a non-issue that has no impact whatsoever on the vast majority of the population, yet it risks turning into a deciding factor in the election.

If you support the ban, ask yourself: Have you ever been to a citizenship ceremony? Do you actively follow who is being sworn in as Canadian citizens every week? Had you ever given this a moment’s thought before the Tories and the BQ made it an issue?

Of course not. The niqab is a distraction – a culture war fabricated to take voters’ minds off the real and complex issues in this election. Don’t fall for it. Wearing a veil is one thing – wearing a blindfold is another altogether. (Source: Globe & Mail)

 

     

Posted by Project Democracy on Monday, October 12, 2015

Lots of discussion on this Reddit thread.