issues – Page 2 – mackaycartoons

Thursday September 19, 2019

September 19, 2019 by Graeme MacKay

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 12, 2018

September 11, 2018 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday September 12, 2018

Local elections getting lost in the sound and fury

Between Doug Ford’s unprecedented antics at Queen’s Park, Donald Trump’s daily bombastic proclamations and NAFTA negotiations, it’s little wonder local elections — in Hamilton and across Ontario — are being drowned out. But it’s time for that to change.

Our municipal governments have more impact on our day-to-day lives than their more senior brethren. Yes, they’re at the bottom of the food chain — as Ford has so brazenly demonstrated — but they deliver front-line services. Our sidewalks and roads, our safe water supply, public transit, recreational centres and parks, waste disposal, libraries, animal control, tax collection — these and a host of other services and costs flow directly from city hall.

And every four years, we have a chance to pass judgment on the current city council. We can endorse them, collectively or individually. We can change out people we’re not happy with. We can clean house if that’s appropriate (even though we get to vote only for our respective ward councillor, mayor and school trustees).

So while Ford and Trump may be more dramatic (and melodramatic), it behooves us to pay attention to what’s coming up on Monday, Oct. 22. The Spectator has already begun to do that, and we plan to ramp up our coverage beginning this week.

Bottom line: If you live here, pay taxes, raise kids, retire, and you’re an engaged citizen, these elections matter. Don’t miss the opportunity to get involved in local democracy.(Continued: Hamilton Spectator Editorial)

Friday November 4, 2016

November 3, 2016 by Graeme MacKay

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday November 4, 2016

It’s almost over

Hillary Clinton’s mirthless slog toward the presidency is entering its final full week. Donald Trump, meanwhile, enters the final eight days of the campaign upbeat, having seen his chances of winning double over the weekend after news Friday afternoon that the FBI is reviewing additional emails in its investigation of Clinton’s private email server.

The candidates’ contrasting moods have changed — but those moods belie the reality of a race that still favors the Democratic nominee.

[slideshow_deploy id=’8949′]

Trump now has a roughly 20 percent chance of winning the White House next Tuesday, almost double what it was days earlier after a month of poor debate performances and increasingly unfocused, angry speeches. Surveys taken over the weekend show that the FBI’s decision is bringing some disaffected Republican voters home to Trump but that a majority of voters are unlikely to change their minds in light of the latest “October surprise.”

“I’d characterize it more as Trump consolidating some of the available anti-Clinton vote as opposed to Clinton’s support eroding,” said GOP strategist Bruce Haynes. “Now the question is do people interpret this news in a way that raises enough doubts about Clinton’s judgment to cut into her number. Because it’s not enough for Trump’s number to move up. Hers has to go down.” (Source: Politico)

Saturday October 10, 2015

October 10, 2015 by Graeme MacKay

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)

#cdnpoli #elexn42 #elxn2015 pic.twitter.com/bEqvZBis3T

— Christine Spadafora (@christinespad) October 11, 2015

BOOM https://t.co/bVm2sWXSk4 — Andrew Coyne (@acoyne) October 12, 2015

Posted by Project Democracy on Monday, October 12, 2015

Lots of discussion on this Reddit thread.

Thursday October 7, 2015

October 7, 2015 by Graeme MacKay

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday October 7, 2015

Harper’s proposed niqab ban among civil servants draws condemnation

He opened the door earlier in the week with a CBC television interview, saying niqabs could be nixed in the public service — echoing similar comments last week in the French-language leaders’ debate.

2011-2015

But on Wednesday, the Conservative leader went further, lauding Quebec’s Bill 64, which requires those who wear face coverings to remove them if they want to work in the public sector — or do business with government officials. Although tabled in the National Assembly, the bill has yet to be debated.

He called the Quebec Liberal government’s approach measured and pledged that when it came time for federal legislation, he would follow their lead.

“I believe the Quebec government has been handling this controversial issue in a responsible manner and we will do exactly the same thing in Ottawa,” Harper said during a campaign stop in Saskatoon.

As if to hammer home the point, the Conservatives released online attack ads in French Wednesday, going after Justin Trudeau’s position on the niqab.

A proposed ban on niqabs in the federal civil service would affect an infinitesimally small number of bureaucrats — if any at all. Statistics from 2011 show only 1.8 per cent of 257,000 federal employees are Muslim women and only a small subset of them is likely to wear face coverings.

The Conservatives have already tried to require Muslim women to show their faces at citizenship ceremonies, but those rules are being challenged in the courts. Harper’s comments on Wednesday make clear he is eyeing additional legislation to require women to unveil every time they want services from the federal government.

Harper insisted his government has been “saying the same thing for several months” on the issue.

While the prime minister may have been consistent in his comments that niqabs are contrary to Canadian values, that doesn’t mean members of his own cabinet are all on the same page about a wider ban.

Asked last spring whether the Conservatives would consider implementing measures similar to those in Quebec, Treasury Board President Tony Clement said the federal opposition to niqabs was limited to citizenship ceremonies.

“That is what the prime minister said and that is a point of view that one can hold,” Clement said on March 11, 2015. “That doesn’t mean that you can impose that view in the workplace or in the private sphere. The one place where I think we have a right and an obligation to stress Canadian values is in the act of obtaining one’s citizenship”

Both Trudeau and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair condemned the latest proposal as an attempt to distract voters from serious questions about Conservative management of the economy. (Source: Globe & Mail)