race

Saturday September 18, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday September 18, 2021

This was no ordinary election campaign, but perhaps not ‘important’

If the polls are to be believed, we have all just wasted five weeks of our lives. An election that, in law, should never have been called, the reason for which has never been adequately explained, limped through a listless campaign on track to producing a Parliament remarkably like the one it was supposed to replace. The “most important election since 1945,” according to Justin Trudeau, might as well never have happened.

September 1, 2021

Compare the most recent polls (at time of writing) to those taken at the same stage of the previous campaign. The similarity is striking: The Liberals and Conservatives are again in the low 30s, with the NDP at around 19 and the Bloc at a little over six. The seat projections, likewise, look eerily familiar: The Liberals are projected to win about 150 seats, the Conservatives about 120, the NDP and the Bloc about 30 each. Only on the margins has there been much change: the Greens have lost half of their support, while the People’s Party of Canada have tripled theirs.

But. Well, there are lots of buts. National polls mean little: to really get an idea of what’s going on, you have to drill down into the regional figures. Polls are snapshots, not predictions: Much could change in the last days of the campaign. And the polls are often wrong. Turnout is an especially difficult thing to model: Are Conservative voters more motivated than Liberal? Will NDP voters show up? Are PPC supporters so angry they will crawl over the proverbial broken glass to vote, or so alienated that they will not bother?

July 9, 2021

So much for where we are – how did we get here? At the start of the campaign, each of the party leaders faced their own personal and strategic challenges. For Mr. Trudeau, the personal challenge was his faded popular appeal: Once the Liberal Party’s most significant asset, he had become its most significant liability, under the accumulated weight of broken promises, ethical lapses and sundry other controversies. The party led all polls going into the election, some by double digits. But the leader trailed the party.

The strategic challenge, as for any Liberal leader, was to win the “progressive primary.” A substantial majority of Canadians might be described as left of centre. But their vote is divided among several parties, with no enduring loyalty to any of them. In 2015, many of those voters were drawn to the Liberal side by a youthful, charismatic leader and a positive vision of change; in 2021, they would have to be frightened into it, as the party best placed to avert the dread prospect of a Conservative government.

August 25, 2020

For Erin O’Toole, personal unpopularity also presented a challenge: His precampaign approval numbers were even worse than Mr. Trudeau’s. A year into the job as Conservative Party Leader, people still did not know much about him, but what they did know they didn’t much like.

His strategic challenge: Conservative support has a high floor and a low ceiling. Where Liberal support can range anywhere from 20 per cent to 50 per cent, the Conservatives can reliably count on winning at least 30 per cent of the vote, but have difficulty getting beyond 37 per cent or 38 per cent. Only once in the past eight elections, in 2011, have they managed it.

January 22, 2021

To remedy that, Mr. O’Toole needed to shift the Conservatives from an angry, grievance-based party, more concerned with turning out its existing supporters than reaching out to new ones, into one that could attract centrist voters. The aim was not just to expand the Conservative vote, but to distribute it more efficiently: fewer votes wasted racking up huge majorities in the West, more going to win those tight races in suburban Ontario and Quebec.

That meant presenting the Conservatives as a safe, inoffensive choice, largely indistinguishable from the Liberals ideologically, but with a less polarizing leader. (In Quebec, where votes divide on different lines, it meant pitching the Tories as a more pragmatic version of the Bloc: nearly as nationalistic, but with more ability to “deliver the goods.”)

October 18, 2019

The catch: people might believe that about Mr. O’Toole. But would they believe it about his party? For Mr. O’Toole, in short, the problem was his base; for Mr. Trudeau, it was him. (Continued: Andrew Coyne, The Globe & Mail)

Drawing the Federal Leaders



 

Friday June 18, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday June 18, 2021

Green Party’s Annamie Paul survives emergency meeting over leadership

The leadership of the Green Party’s Annamie Paul is safe — for now — after party brass decided late Tuesday not to kick-start a process that could have ultimately ousted her as leader of the party.

October 7, 2020

The party’s federal council — which is the governing body of the party — held an emergency meeting Tuesday night that lasted more than three-and-a-half hours. Officials were expected to hold a vote on whether to trigger a complex process under the party’s constitution that could have declared no-confidence in Paul’s leadership.

That vote did not end up taking place, multiple sources with knowledge of the meeting told CBC News.

Instead, sources say, the federal council adopted a separate motion asking Paul to publicly repudiate one of Paul’s former senior advisers, Noah Zatzman, who accused many politicians — including unspecified Green MPs — of discrimination and antisemitism in a social media post last month.

The motion also calls for Paul to “explicitly support” the Green Party caucus. If not, the motion says, Paul would face a vote of non-confidence on July 20.

Tuesday night’s decision follows a difficult few weeks for the party, which has been ripped apart by internal disputes over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As violence in the region escalated, Paul issued a statement calling for a ceasefire and condemning both Palestinian rocket attacks and excessive Israeli military force, an apparent attempt to put forward a moderate position close to that of the Trudeau government.

Green MP Jenica Atwin — who has since left the Green caucus to join the Liberals — ripped into Paul’s statement on Twitter. “It is a totally inadequate statement,” Atwin wrote. “Forced evictions must end. I stand with Palestine and condemn the unthinkable airstrikes in Gaza. End Apartheid.”

Green MP Paul Manly also took issue with Paul’s statement, saying the planned removal of Palestinian families from the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah “is ethnic cleansing.”

Zatzman responded with a Facebook post stating that Greens “will work to defeat you and bring in progressive climate champions who are antifa and pro LGBT and pro indigenous sovereignty and Zionists!!!!!”

Zatzman is no longer an adviser to the leader. His six-month contract, slated to expire on July 4 and obtained by The Canadian Press, stipulates that the party will pay Zatzman a fee for time worked beyond 100 hours per month.

CBC News reached out to the Green Party, Paul and Zatzman for comment after Tuesday’s meeting. (CBC) 

 

Friday June 26, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay – Friday June 26, 2020

‘Defund the police’ movement hits semantics roadblock

Activists calling to “defund the police” are encountering early opposition to their slogan, with some supporters saying it’s confusing and others worrying the overall goal could be misinterpreted.

June 10, 2020

The phrase, which has become a rallying cry among some advocates during the George Floyd protests, broadly refers to cutting funds for law enforcement and redirecting them toward social programs, particularly those focused on crime prevention and alternative forms of public safety.

The slogan became an easy target for President Trump and other Republicans who have seized on the wording in an attempt to paint Democrats as supporting lawless communities. However, top Democrats, including presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), quickly distanced themselves from the phrase.

“The slogan may be misleading without interpretation,” Rev. Al Sharpton said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” this past week, adding that he understood the phrase to be more about deep-rooted reform efforts.

“I don’t think anyone other than the far extremes are saying we don’t want any kind of policing at all,” he said.

But the need to explain the meaning behind the wording comes with its own set of critics.

June 18, 2015

“If you’re explaining, you’re losing, and there’s a lot of explaining going on,” Meghan McCain, a right-leaning commentator said on ABC’s “The View.”

“If you mean reform, say reform. If you mean defund, say defund. People are confused,” she added.

Evan Nierman, the CEO and founder of crisis communications PR firm Red Banyan, said the message has its pros and cons.

“The plus for them is that it’s a phrase that’s a call to action, it’s something tangible that they can demand. Rather than just saying ‘equal rights for all’ or ‘justice for all,’ we want this concrete thing,” he said.

But long-term, Nierman said he didn’t think it was a good slogan.

“It may be good at prompting a conversation, but the language is so extreme that it alienates. If they came up with something that more accurately portrays the policy, it might get more public support,” he said.

Some prominent activists and political leaders have pushed back on the idea that a grassroots slogan should be changed so that it has broader appeal.

“Lots of DC insiders are criticizing frontline activists over political feasibility and saying they need a new slogan. But poll-tested slogans and electoral feasibility is not the activists’ job. Their job is to organize support and transform public opinion, which they are doing,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted.

“And by the way, the fact that ppl are scrambling to repackage this whole conversation to make it palatable for largely affluent, white suburban ‘swing’ voters again points to how much more electoral & structural power these communities have relative to others,” she added. (The Hill) 

 

Friday October 18, 2019

October 18, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday October 18, 2019

Is the 2019 election Canada’s ‘nastiest’ ever? Not by a long shot

Canada’s electoral history has never been pretty.

Sir John A. Macdonald

In the years immediately before and after Confederation — when votes were carried out by voice at public meetings — the system was crooked by design. The parties frequently purchased loyalties with cash, or with gifts of food, booze or household staples. And they made certain they were getting what they paid for by keeping lists of the bribes and crossing off names.

The necessary funds came from party backers and self-interested corporate titans — people like railway baron Sir Hugh Allan, who was at the centre of the Pacific Scandal that led to the fall of Sir John A. Macdonald’s government in 1873.

“Elections cannot be carried without money,” fumed John H. Cameron, the Conservative MP for Peel, as the House of Commons debated secret ballots in the scandal’s aftermath. “Under an open system of voting, you can readily ascertain whether the voter has deceived you. Under vote by ballot, an elector may take your money and vote as he likes without detection.”

Sir Robert Borden

The abuses continued even after open voting ended. Clergy regularly threatened hellfire from the pulpits, and businesses promised instant unemployment, should parishioners or employees break ranks and vote for the wrong party. Electoral lists were drawn up by government appointees who struck off opposition supporters and retained the names of residents who had moved or died — so that ballot boxes could be stuffed if required.

How bad was it back then? According to Elections Canada, between 1874 and 1896 the courts overturned the results in 134 ridings on the grounds that one party or the other had committed vote fraud.

Changes to the laws on elections and political donations improved the situation. But that didn’t result in campaigns becoming more genteel or evidence-based.

Matthew Hayday, a professor of Canadian history at the University of Guelph, cites a few prime examples of gutter politics. In the 1917 election, Robert Borden’s Unionist government manipulated voting rules, painted anti-conscription Quebecers as traitors and openly accused Liberal Leader Wilfrid Laurier of being in the corner of the German Kaiser.

Kim Campbell

In the 1993 campaign, Kim Campbell’s Conservatives aired their infamous “Think Twice” commercials featuring close-ups of Jean Chrétien’s face — ads that many perceived as mocking the Liberal leader’s partial facial paralysis.

“To me, those campaigns were far worse than anything we’ve seen in this election,” said Hayday.

Richard Johnston is the Canada Research Chair in Public Opinion, Elections and Representation at the University of British Columbia. He said he thinks that this campaign has been “more vituperative” that many recent elections — but negative politics has been the norm in Canada for a long time.

He pointed to the June 1945 federal and Ontario provincial elections, which saw Conservative backers portraying the left wing Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) — the forerunner of the NDP — as a party of “foreign” ideas, and published pamphlets featuring anti-Semitic caricatures of David Lewis, the CCF’s national secretary.

Paul Martin Jr.

“That would probably be the true low point in Canadian history,” said Johnston.

In fact, upbeat and optimistic campaigns like Jack Layton’s 2011 run, or Justin Trudeau’s 2015 offer of “sunny ways”, are the exceptions in Canadian politics — not the rule.

Paul Martin’s Liberals clung to power in 2004 by going ultra-negative against Stephen Harper’s Tories. The 2011 Conservative win was sullied by the ‘Robocall’ scandal — which saw voters directed to the wrong polling places — and by the attempted ‘swiftboating’ of Jack Layton with a leaked story about an old massage parlour raid.

And it’s worth noting that self-fulfilling prophecies seem to be at play this time around. A year ago, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer and Trudeau both warned that the 2019 election would be dirty and perhaps “the nastiest one yet.”

To be sure, this campaign has been filled with pointed personal criticism, and things like Trudeau’s blackface scandal and the controversy over Scheer’s dual citizenship have often overshadowed the platforms.

And it’s fair to say that, as the vote approaches, all the parties seem to be doing their best to stoke public fears about their opponents with talk of “secret” plans about hard drugs or abortion, or through third party attack ads and selectively-edited campaign literature.

October 16, 2019

“We are living in a more polarized political climate in Canada,” said Johnston, “and nobody’s hands are clean.”

It’s worth remembering at this point that, just six months ago, the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP all signed on to a global “election integrity” pledge through which they vowed to crack down on the use of social media bots and avoid the dissemination of “falsified, fabricated” disinformation.

The Verdict: False. The 2019 campaign has featured plenty of ugliness, but it is hardly ranks among the “nastiest, dirtiest” elections in Canadian history. Still, as the clock ticks down, there might be new depths to be plumbed. (CBC News) 

 

Tuesday September 10, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday September 10, 2019

Do the Greens have what it takes to pass the NDP?

“The NDP,” Stockwell Day told CBC’s Power Panel last week, “is toast.”

September 5, 2019

The statement was somewhat surprising coming from the former Conservative cabinet minister, who had been defending NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh’s political potential for months. Not that surprising, though, given the number of people writing off the New Democrats these days.

Even Charlie Angus admitted a few days ago he’s been reading his party’s obituary for a long time. Angus insisted that obit isn’t ready to be printed, but his counter-argument was all about the kind of power New Democrats could enjoy in a minority government — one led by another party.

Singh himself all but acknowledged recently how low the party is setting its sights in 2019 when he ripped into Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer over his 2005 comments on same-sex marriage. He said the NDP would not support a Conservative minority. But why would he even talk about a minority government at this point? Singh is supposed to be running to form a government of his own — not to prop one up (or knock one down).

July 22, 2015

I don’t like to write any party off. I remember how many people (in the media and outside of it) used to say it would be a cold day in hell before Justin Trudeau ever became prime minister. (Prior to the last election, you’ll remember, the Liberals were polling a distant third.)

The campaign changed things. That’s what campaigns do. I think just about anything could happen in the coming campaign as well.

But it’s pretty bleak out there for the Dippers right now: not a lot of cash in the coffers, polling below the Greens in Quebec (the single most important province for the party) and nowhere near a full slate of candidates in the days before the real campaign begins.

July 13, 2016

The natural heir to whatever ground the New Democrats have lost would appear to be the Green Party. But that isn’t a given.

First came an announcement that 14 New Democrats in New Brunswick, all provincial save for one member of the federal executive, were defecting to the Green Party because they didn’t like their chances as NDP candidates.

Then, one of the defectors told The Canadian Press and CBC Radio’s As It Happens he’s talked to people in the province who are uncomfortable with Singh’s religion.

A day went by and the NDP started calling around newsrooms, saying not all the people on the defectors’ list are actually leaving for the Greens. A handful came out publicly to say they’re sticking with the NDP. Singh said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May “has a lot to answer for.”

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May released a statement. “I won’t attack (Singh),” she says — after attacking him at length, accusing him of blowing off New Brunswick and reminding him that “being a federal party leader is hard work.” All of which should tell you that Trudeau and Scheer are quite right when they predict the coming campaign will be “nasty.”

The defectors story is complicated and weird. Does it point to organizational problems for the Greens and the NDP? Probably.

If the Greens orchestrated this regional coup, they need to work on their coup-making skills. Some of the people on the initial list of defectors reportedly thought they were simply talking about a merger with the Greens. Others said they didn’t even know they’d been added to the list. (One Green candidate in the Maritimes gulped when I called to ask about this week’s events, calling them “embarrassing.”) (CBC) 

On your marks… from r/canadapoliticshumour