election

Thursday September 26, 2019

September 26, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday September 26, 2019

Exclusive poll reveals ‘Doug Ford factor’ a big problem for Scheer’s Conservatives in Ontario

June 8, 2019

The “Doug Ford factor” that some federal Conservatives worried would hurt their chances in Ontario this election appears to be very real, and especially significant, suggests a new survey conducted in partnership between the Angus Reid Institute and Postmedia.

The poll shows that half of Ontario’s population sees their federal vote being swayed by the performance of Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government in that province — and most are not being influenced in a way that will benefit the federal Tories.

Among those Ontarians who say their federal vote will be affected by their impressions of Ford’s government, a whopping 85 per cent say the “policies and actions” of the provincial PC government will make them less likely to support Andrew Scheer’s federal Conservative party.

July 17, 2019

The “Doug Ford factor” that some federal Conservatives worried would hurt their chances in Ontario this election appears to be very real, and especially significant, suggests a new survey conducted in partnership between the Angus Reid Institute and Postmedia.

The poll shows that half of Ontario’s population sees their federal vote being swayed by the performance of Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government in that province — and most are not being influenced in a way that will benefit the federal Tories.

Among those Ontarians who say their federal vote will be affected by their impressions of Ford’s government, a whopping 85 per cent say the “policies and actions” of the provincial PC government will make them less likely to support Andrew Scheer’s federal Conservative party.

Twenty-eight per cent of those Ontarians who claim their vote will be impacted this way qualified the impact of the provincial PC government on their vote as “massive.” The next-highest “massive” impact reported was in Quebec, but with only 12 per cent describing it in such strong terms.

February 13, 2009

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal party has clearly sensed an opportunity to exploit the impact Ford is having in Ontario on federal Conservative support. Liberals have tried throughout the campaign to link Scheer to Ford. This week the federal Liberal leader lambasted Ford, calling him “Exhibit A” in Trudeau’s grim description of what he says Canada would look like under Conservative rule. “Families here in Ontario have seen just how far they are willing to go to help the wealthiest few,” he said in Hamilton, Ont. “How quickly they will make cuts to public health and to the services people rely on most.”

Trudeau’s Liberals have been the biggest beneficiaries from the Ford factor: Among Ontarians whose federal voting decisions are being affected by Ford, 71 per cent say they’re likelier to vote Liberal on October 21. But the Liberals would be wrong to assume they have those votes sewn up: 66 per cent of those provincially impacted Ontarians also said they were likelier to vote for the NDP. (National Post) 

 

Friday September 12, 2019

September 12, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday September 12, 2019

Did Trudeau really give ‘the largest’ waiver of cabinet confidence in history?

Forced to address the SNC-Lavalin scandal on the first day of the federal election campaign, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau made a sweeping statement.

“We gave out the largest and most expansive waiver of cabinet confidence in Canada’s history,” he said in response to reporters’ questions about a Globe and Mail article that said the RCMP’s efforts to examine the SNC-Lavalin affair have been stymied by the government’s refusal to lift cabinet confidentiality.

But legal experts tell CTV News they’re not sure how Trudeau is measuring what he calls the most “expansive” waiver of cabinet confidence, let alone how true his claim is.

Some other examples from past years include former prime minister Stephen Harper approving confidence waivers for the RCMP investigation into the Senate spending scandal.

Harper’s predecessor Paul Martin gave the Gomery Commission cabinet documents linked to the Liberal sponsorship scandal that rocked Ottawa in the mid-2000s.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer also spoke about the SNC-Lavalin affair on the first day of electioneering.

“The RCMP is investigating into possible obstruction of justice charges in the prime minister’s office,” Scheer said Wednesday as he formally launched his campaign.

However, the Globe and Mail said Mounties want to thoroughly question witnesses as part of an “examination,” not a formal investigation.

The SNC-Lavalin affair has been trailing Trudeau for months, ever since former justice minister Jody-Wilson Raybould alleged that she was inappropriately pressured by the prime minister and his office to end the criminal prosecution of the Quebec engineering giant. (CTV News) 

 

Thursday September 12, 2019

September 12, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday September 12, 2019

There is deep angst in Canada ahead of this fall’s election

We may have voted for hope, optimism and sunny days in 2015 but Canadians don’t appear to be very optimistic heading into the Fall of 2019.

August 14, 2014

Canadians do see a strong economy right now. Assessment of their personal finances has gone from 32 per cent positive (Q4 2015) to 46 per cent today and their assessment of their job security has grown from 39 per cent positive (Q4 2015) to 52 per cent today.

On the eve of the writ dropping, one would assume from these numbers that the federal Liberals would very much like to have the 2019 ballot question be: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

But it won’t be, because despite these views and some impressive economic numbers at the macro level, Canadians aren’t optimistic about their longer-term prospects. Pocket-book issues and concerns over affordability are a common thread connecting most of the top issues Canadians identify as priorities: healthcare, the economy, housing, climate change, and taxes.

Our concerns are more than economic. There is deep angst about the direction of the country. Canadians are questioning the value and the very role of government, politicians and political parties in their lives and many politicians are going to run into the buzz saw of growing cynicism once they start knocking on doors. For starters:

January 3, 2014

* 67 per cent (unchanged since 2016) agree that the country’s economy is rigged to the advantage of the rich and powerful

* 61 per cent (vs. 56 per cent in 2016) agree that “traditional parties and politicians don’t care about people like me”

* 57 per cent (vs. in 47 per cent November 2016) say the country is “going in the wrong direction”

* 52 per cent (up dramatically from 37 per cent in 2016) agree that “Canadian society is broken”

This level of angst and cynicism among Canadians is going to pose a challenge for all political parties. Delivering policy ideas along with messaging to motivate supporter turn-out will be difficult, and they will need to find a balance between positive, forward-looking messages and empathetic, “we get you now” messages.

Imagine if you were a federal candidate hearing this at the door while looking for a vote: “I think the economy is stacked against me, I don’t think you care about me, I think our society is broken and our country is headed in the wrong direction. Tell me how you are going to fix this and why I should vote for you?” (Global News) 

 

Thursday September 19, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday September 19, 2019

Political smorgasbord doesn’t come free

Transactional politics are nothing new. That’s where a politician and/or a party offers goodies on the front end of the transaction, and the voter supports the politician/party on the back end.

September 12, 2019

It’s not unlike shopping and being drawn to sales or special deals that look especially appealing. That outfit looks good, but wait, the one next to it looks as good but it’s cheaper, or perhaps nicer in some small way. So the natural tendency is to take the one that seems better, even if the difference is marginal.

But what if the front of the special buy is fine, but you see flaws or differences once it’s unwrapped? What if you find out it needs special treatment when being cleaned, or it requires some sort of investment you weren’t expecting?

The analogy with the kind of transactional politics we’re experiencing during this election campaign isn’t perfect, but it serves the purpose. The political store has been bustling with promises, especially over the last several days, as the competing parties roll out their platforms — bit by bit — and try to be the outfit with that special something.

October 10, 2015

There’s nothing wrong with all this, to a point. It serves the purpose of offering measurable alternatives. If you don’t like the Conservative plan to expand RESPs, you can choose the Liberals because you like their plan about helping first-time home buyers. Or vice-versa. But it can be problematic when this sort of offer-of-the-day political play dominates the campaign to the exclusion of all else, and that is what’s happening right now.

It’s a veritable smorgasbord. Pick the party that has enough you like, and just vote for them? Of course, it’s not that easy. We know that not all promises are kept. Remember Justin Trudeau on electoral reform. We know that not all promises are fully explained. Andrew Scheer’s tax cuts are phased in so the maximum benefit comes only after three years. And the cost of that promise alone is $6 billion, which has to be paid for by someone — who might that be?

A big problem with many of the promises made to date is that the parties haven’t explained fully — in some cases not at all — how they will pay for their promises. That’s a critical part of understanding how parties will govern if elected. And it’s not always just about balanced budgets or deficits. It’s also about what things — like government services and support — get sacrificed in order for promises to be kept.

All smorgasbords end the same way. There’s a bill to pay. We can all stand to be reminded of that. (Hamilton Spectator) 

 

Wednesday September 11, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday September 11, 2019

Why is it so hard for Independent candidates to get elected to Canada’s House of Commons?

May 28, 2019

Canada has not had a strong Independent movement since Confederation when there were several Independent politicians in government. They were called “loose fish” and operated separately of political structures, explains John English, director of the Bill Graham Centre for Contemporary International history at Trinity College.

When the party system began to take hold at the turn of the century under Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, these “loose fish” declined in numbers. The party structure became the main source of funding for candidates and also provided patronage appointments to important positions such as the railway or the post office.

November 9, 2018

Independents made a brief resurgence in the Second World War. When Prime Minister Mackenzie King broke his promise of conscription, Quebec Liberals declared themselves Independent (but still affiliated with the Liberal party for the most part).

By the 1960s, Independents became especially rare in Canadians politics, limited only to “those candidates who got kicked out of their party or decided their interest didn’t align with party values or the party leader,” English said.

The debate over the strength and influence of central party power in politics isn’t new, either. Collenette says this discussion has been occurring within parties for years, but “the question now is larger because its not contained in the party anymore.”

Promising the moon

The main reason Canada doesn’t have more Independent politicians is because “they don’t win,” Thomas said. Before campaign finance legislation changes were created in 1974, local electoral campaign officers would identify supporters and then get supporter to learn the name of the candidate. Now, voters are more likely to recognize party labels than individual names.

David Moscrop, political scientist and author of “Too Dumb for Democracy,” agrees that central party authority needs to be loosened but worries about the tradeoffs. First, it’ll require a lot of cooperation from parties, civil service, staffers, leadership and media. (“I don’t think that is going to happen,” Moscrop says.) Then you have to balance loosening party control while maintaining party cohesion. (“How do you do that?” he asks.) (National Observer)